No.1580[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1567889761410.jpg (867.95 KB, 2133x1200, 711:400, dc1rbog-7377b99c-7de6-47df….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Lets give two hypothetical scenarios:
Let's say, science discovers a way for two men to reproduce with each other. The result is always a baby boy and the men born from this process are able to repeat it and reproduce with other men as well, when they reach sexual maturity.
Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human females, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological women would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist.
Would men alone create a better society than the current one? A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members. And if so, would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
File: 1567890389731.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google
Probably not, if I were to believe any of the men I've hung around with. Sausage parties aren't my cup of tea.
>"Is it morally right to suddenly rid the world of biological women who have technically committed no wrong"
File: 1567894103116.png (303.27 KB, 446x430, 223:215, have a hat.png) ImgOps Google
why would men want a world without boobs?
Crime might not be as necessary with the lessened burden of needing to attract a mate.
Both in terms of raw resources, proclaiming one's success or wealth, and in terms of reputation aspects.
It's hard to say with any kind of certainty, of course.
I'd agree with that. >>1589
Most people aren't gay, as I understand it.
I mean, maybe you could make the case that more would be, without women. But, I'm not really convinced.
Well, I don't know how this hypothetical works! I assume that suddenly all men magically become bi or something so that civilization doesn't completely collapse.
Otherwise, would most men just become single dads that get sperm donation to create a family? Like, the more interesting hypothetical to me is how does civilization adapt without women.
It'd be strange, I think, but, yeah.
If some strange accident caused there to be no women in the world, but we could still maintain the population either through cloning or some other means, I doubt there'd be any extreme changes.
Just a bunch of smaller changes from minor social shifts.
For example, food industry'd probably shrink considerably. I mean, why go out on expensive dates any more?
File: 1567912459684.jpg (360.72 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1566070749430.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1580>Would men alone create a better society than the current one?
No. A world without cute girls is not a world worth living in.
Also, do all men turn homosexual? In many developed countries, the birth rate is already below replacement level. Japan is experiencing this especially severely. If there is less motive for reproduction, the human race might dwindle until drastic action is taken.>Let's say, science discovers a way for two men to reproduce with each other.
I don't think it would be accurate to characterize them as "men" (in the sense of "adult male human") in that case. Males, by definition, produce motile gametes whose only action is to fertilize ova. In some species, an ovum is a capable of maturing on its own with fertilization (parthenogenesis), but spermatozoa cannot.
File: 1567914695880.jpg (171.31 KB, 850x1145, 170:229, 1562445106769.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Well I guess you might have a point...
>>1605>I'm not even sure HOW there being no women would even effect those things.
Without women, there wouldn't be domestic violence against women or men killing each other over women. That would eliminate at least some violence.
Supposedly war is sometimes fought over women too (e.g., Helen of Troy). I'm not quite sure I believe that though.
File: 1568005566594.jpg (98.78 KB, 878x1200, 439:600, D7nDg6zVUAAf5yG.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Most of the supposed "toxic masculinity" is about women, though.
At least how I've heard the term described.
There would still be domestic violence, though. Against family members and against people with male lovers. And there would still be other reasons for men to kill each other. In fact, situations where men kill each other "over women" seem to be vastly more uncommon than all the other combined situations where men kill each other. So IF violence decreased, it would not be by much at all.
Compare that to the reverse, where 80% of violence ceased because the people committing it also ceased to be. >>1610
I'm not sure I follow. Toxic Masculinity is about holding the negative aspects of masculinity like domination through violence and not expressing emotion in healthy ways in too high a regard. Things like "Boys don't cry" and "Real men don't watch musicals". It's saying that there is only one way of acting and being that makes you a man or masculine. That's not about women at all, it's about us. So I'm not sure what you mean unless you don't understand what "toxic masculinity" is.
Without women around, those attitudes I just described would only grow more and more prevalent. And they are unhealthy for men and only lead to more violence, not less.
I'd disagree. I think those exist primarily because
of women, and the expectations and requirements of
I don't think not crying is something men have simply by virtue of being men, or are expected to have by other men. I think it's something that largely comes up by virtue of needing to be the foundation rock of a household.
I think it comes up because of the man typically being the person responsible for taking their family through rough times.
I would expect much of this to shrink without women, as no longer do men have to be solid foundational rocks for their significant other.
If anything, I suspect overall stress placed on men will rather sharply decrease, especially since you would have households with equal partners, participating and providing for one another, instead of burdening a single person with all of the duty of providing.
I'd wager much of what you'd point to and claim is said "this is what a man is" would disappear simply by virtue of no longer needing to be a "man", being that there is only men.
I kind of disagree that it's the result of women. It's other men who old men to these standards. Male friends who mock their peers for not having "masculine" interests. Who hold up unrealistic ideals of masculinity as examples of "real men".
It's been my experience that women are far more open to a man expressing their feelings and emotions without mockery. There ARE women out there who promote unhealthy standards of masculinity, sure. But the pressure I feel is from other men, not women.
I don't think the desire or pressure to be a "man" is tied to women either. Again, I feel that pressure from other men much more than I ever have from women. In a situation with no women at all, those sentiments would be amplified. Society would be ALL about domination and control, with no compassion and empathy to contrast it. An all male society would quickly devolve into Mad Max-esque dystopia, where the strength and domination was valued most.
I don't think that's accurate at all.
I've certainly never felt such pressures from my peers, compared to women.
Perhaps you and I have rather sharply different experiences growing up, though. Most all the men in my life were supportive of me. Any "men don't cry" type of things that ever showed up weren't a sort of "stop showing your feelings loser" type of deal, as much as a flat "Come on, get up, and keep trying. You can do it" type of deal.
I guess you didn't have that sort of thing. It's unfortunate, but, I don't think you should let that bias make you condemn all men like this. Just seems rather unhealthy.
I don't condemn all men. I am a man.
I'm against toxic masculinity, as I described it in >>1612
. Because I don't agree with it. I think there are lots of ways to be a man or be masculine, and I think that adhering to outdated ideas about it can be dangerous. I also don't feel like women are our enemies. Women are our teammates, and have a lot to bring to the table. They can help us bridge that gap to do away with toxic masculinity, so long as we listen and don't write them off when they point it out, as so many men do. Without that compassion and empathy, men would just tear each other apart.
It's more pointed at your assumption for what a male society'd be, in your last paragraph. It definitely'd seem to suggest you think, at the very least, most
men are that way.
Well, that and, also because of the last paragraph, I'm fairly sure you're the OP from the last thread.
But, yeah, I do not think 'without that compassion and empathy' that you presume only comes from women, men would 'just tear eachother apart'.
It seems to suggest an extremely bleak view of men that I do not believe reflects reality.
If anything, there's a possibility that violence would all but end, as much violence is done to impress women, or to gain enough resources/social status to attract women. Without women around, the incentive to kill each other just isn't there as much. Then again, the macho dudes might just fight each other to impress the girly boys and we're back to square one. Probably the latter.
I think women are more responsible for the world's ails than people are ready to admit. It's a lot harder to point the blame on a woman who won't date a man because he's "a pussy", when that man goes on to shoot up a school to prove he's a man than it to pin on the man himself, certainly a lot less obvious and intuitive. Nobody thinks that woman has anything to do with that whatsoever. I'm not saying that it's entirely her fault, but she's not blameless in the situation. Women's sexual selection is one of the strongest socio-evolutionary forces today. To only date violent neanderthals and then decry how today's men are all violent neanderthals... well... you've made your own bed there, certainly on a macro level women are crying about the bed they refuse to admit they've had a huge part in making.
How does a woman have any fault in a man's overreaction to getting rejected and his choice to turn to violence because of it? Anyone who would do that probably has other problems beyond someone calling them a "pussy". He isn't OWED a date with that person. For all we know, she rejected him BECAUSE he was a psycho and not for "being a pussy".
Also, the idea of blaming women for "only" dating "assholes" is incel rhetoric. Lots of kind men find relationships. It's just anger over rejection directed at women as a collective group.
Most men aren't that way in our current society. Because our current society is a mixture of both men and women. This is speculating on what the world would be like without any women in it. Attitudes and behaviors would change.
My opinion is that, like all dystopian future shown in film, a world where strength and domination are held in the highest regard would end in a very hostile environment. Compassion would be frowned upon. All that would matter is who was the biggest and baddest. That kind of environment would turn anyone into a colder, more violent person. It doesn't reflect on men as they are now in our world anymore than any dystopian film does.
He's not owned a date. However, he may have attempted dating, been rejected, and is now changing himself into a more violent, or otherwise destructive, form in order to be more attractive to women. This negative change has come as a reaction to romantic/sexual feedback from women.
On a macro level, men do a lot of violent shit because they think it will get them laid. If there was zero truth in that, it wouldn't happen, simple as that. There would be no posturing douchebags at the bar, the stereotype of women dating assholes would not exist. If it's absolutely devoid of truth, then why does the mythos exist? Sure, plenty of different relationship types exist, but to say that no man acts worse to impress a woman, or that women as a whole have no responsibility over that perception, is nothing but willful ignorance imho.>>1620
Nah, some asshole who waves his bigness and badness around is going to get his ass handed to him by a bunch of average/lower than average dudes who know how to work together and cooperate. Raw strength and intimidation in the long term will always get it's shit kicked in by intelligence and cooperation.
>>1621>now changing himself into a more violent, or otherwise destructive, form in order to be more attractive to women.
I disagree that is what is motivating his decision to turn to violence. None of the manifestos of these people have ever claimed that their actions will get them the attention of women they desire. They always in fact claim that it is for revenge. To harm a world they feel has harmed them. >men do a lot of violent shit because they think it will get them laid.
Like... what exactly? I feel like this is also incel rhetoric. Men do violent shit for a variety of reasons. I've never heard a thief say he steals to impress women. He steals because he wants something someone else has. I've never heard a killer say he kills to impress women. He says he kills because he enjoys it. What evidence do you have that these things are "for women"? Or that, without women, men would not longer have this desire to impress others?>who know how to work together and cooperate.
If that were true, we wouldn't have any wars in our world. All it takes is for someone to be charismatic enough to convince other men to follow him. That's why gangs have leaders. It would be that, just on a global scale.
It's not that he's "owed" a date, or that it's her fault, it's that the societal norms and standards you assume are pushed by men, aren't.
They're mainly, near as I can tell, pushed by women.>For all we know, she rejected him BECAUSE he was a psycho and not for "being a pussy".
Do you know what a hypothetical is?
Because it doesn't work this way.>>1620
Right, and you assume that without women, men would devolve into some sort of horrific mad-max dystopia... Thus suggesting you think that most men are held in check by women, at the very least.
Not something I'd consider healthy.
To me, it suggests some rather extreme unfortunate contacts with men, which've caused you to look on them with a particularly dangerous outlook.
The compassion aspect is a great example of this. Most the compassion I have ever received has been from men. Evidently, you feel like compassion is not a common male trait, and is something that would be kicked from society with the absence of women.
I'm sorry someone hurt you, but, maybe it's a bad idea to generalize about a large group of people in rather hurtful ways because of it.
It doesn't help you, it doesn't help me, and it isn't going to fix anything.
If there's one thing I can guarantee you, it's that people get upset when you make generalized statements about groups they belong to. I wager it's why you got such a bad reaction to your previous thread.
>>1622>If that were true, we wouldn't have any wars in our world.
that is true, we have wars in the world.
Or did you miss the large number of men fighting?
It isn't just two rather large burly dudes bullying other smaller people.> All it takes is for someone to be charismatic enough to convince other men to follow him.
...As in literally working together and cooperating.
You do realize you're now arguing contrary to your earlier point, right?
You were the one who put forward that being the biggest and the baddest is what would be most important.
Now you're saying it's more about who's charismatic enough to get a following.
Compare the behavior of an average person walking around the city/town streets, to the behavior of the average man at a bar/club/other places people typically go to get laid. Do you think these men have the same temperament? Do you think men don't act in rash ways in order to get sex? Because that's a constant in the animal kingdom, do you think humans are just that special? If so, why? If we look to the animal kingdom, we see that getting laid is a primary reason for violence. Why do you think humans are so different?
I agree that there are other reasons for violence, but that doesn't mean attracting women isn't one of them. >If that were true, we wouldn't have any wars in our world. All it takes is for someone to be charismatic enough to convince other men to follow him. That's why gangs have leaders. It would be that, just on a global scale.
Nah, wars happen for many reasons. A lot of it comes down to land and resources, or some kind of "my group vs. your group" deal. But wars are won by organized, coordinated, well-oiled armies with good technology, made by nerds, and lots of people in organized hierarchies, not by whichever army has the loudest, buffest dudes with the biggest dicks.>>1623>They're mainly, near as I can tell, pushed by women.
Really, they have to be, when you think about it. If sexual conquest is considered a masculine ideal, then it's women who ultimately get to decide how people are able to achieve that ideal, and thus achieve those social standards, since women decide who gets to have sex with them. If women wanted to change norms so bad, they've got a pretty strong veto via their sexual selection.
Exactly. Especially since they're the ones who are traditionally approached, to begin with.
When you're the one being approached with suitors, you get to be a whole lot more discretionary with who you choose.
If you're sending out applications for a job, you include ones that are not ideal, yet still acceptable.
If you're looking at applications for a job, you select the best of the applicants you receive.
>>1625>to the behavior of the average man at a bar/club/other places
That's because they are drunk
, not because they are trying to get laid.
And if what you are saying is true, then those biological urges wouldn't just go away just because there were no women.
The rest of this is really just more incel rhetoric. It's just wholesale their whole "Chad/Stacy" rhetoric with a different coat of paint. It's not actually based in anything realistic, and it's just a way to villianize women. Women don't "reward" assholes with sex just because they don't want to date incels with toxic attitudes toward them. >>1624
I'm not arguing against what I said earlier. Because being the biggest and the baddest is PART of their appeal to other men to get them to follow them. Men won't follow someone who they feel is weak or ineffectual.
Men won't follow some brain-dead asshole either just because he's the biggest and baddest, otherwise we wouldn't keep apes in the zoo, we'd be worshiping them.>The rest of this is really just more incel rhetoric. It's just wholesale their whole "Chad/Stacy" rhetoric with a different coat of paint. It's not actually based in anything realistic, and it's just a way to villianize women. Women don't "reward" assholes with sex just because they don't want to date incels with toxic attitudes toward them.
You can't just dismiss the fact that women's sexual selection is a potent socioeconomic force by throwing out buzzwords. Well, i guess you can try, but it doesn't make it any less of a straw man.
Men also won't follow an asshole who's more brutish muscle, than actual sense or decency.>That's because they are drunk, not because they are trying to get laid.
The whole reason to go to a bar/club is to get laid.
There's literally no other reason.
Anyone can get drunk at home. It's much more pleasant, in fact.
Also, I gotta complain about the whole "it's just incel rhetoric" lot, man.
If that's the line of reasoning, I can just say most everything you've put forth is just typical feminazi rhetoric, out to villainize men.
It's not even really a strawman at that point. A strawman at least attacks a
It's more along the lines of an ad hominem at that point.
I've only ever had one woman, a very toxic and bitter one, try to hold me to an unhealthy standard of masculinity or stoism. But I've gotten mocked by several men for not living up to their standards of masculinity. And the most compassion and acceptance for my quirks considered stereotypical unmasculine have come from female friends and romantic partners.
You're making a lot of assumptions here about me. Perhaps the situation here isn't that I'm angry at men for being hurt, but that you are angry at women for being hurt. It's just as likely.
Also the last post didn't go well because two posters in particular overreacted and started making racist comments, and refused to stop when asked to. That is evidenced by this post being worded exactly the same
but not eliciting that reaction from them.
Donald Trump isn't exactly "muscle", but you can't say he has sense or decency. But he's ammased a large following by touting himself as being more stereotypically masculine, and claiming he will dominate others he has deemed weaker.
So it's completely wrong to say that men will not follow a " brain-dead asshole". They can and do. We see this not just in Trump, but it other tyrannical leaders around the world.>The whole reason to go to a bar/club is to get laid. There's literally no other reason.
I've been to a bar and I was not there to get laid. I was there to do social activities with my friends and to drink alcohol. So that's patently false. >>1628
Which one of those was a "buzzword"? If you're going to claim that women sexual selection has "socioeconomic force", then your'e going to need to show me some statistics on that. But you can't be cause "dates assholes" is not a measurable thing.
Hardly. I've yet to make hostile generalized statements about women, nor have I argued for a "yes" answer to any question of if we could thanos them out, should we.
So far all I've put forth is that women are one of the biggest forces determining male behavior primarily because having a woman or being with women is so highly valued socially. They're the ones who get the applications to pick through, as I had framed it.> That is evidenced by this post being worded exactly the same but not eliciting that reaction from them.
I think that's far more to do with the fact that nobody's argued that women are terrible, probably should all be killed off, and that society'd be better without them, while citing statistics irregardless of any potential social reasons for those statistics.
You realize the reasons people brought up the race issue was specifically to demonstrate how hypocritical you were being, right?
And for what it's worth, I'm still a tad pissy about the whole staff only choosing to warn those
guys, who had the audacity to point out this hypocracy, while allowing someone literally arguing for a "yes" answer to a genocide question using the same sort of arguments and general sexist putdowns towards men as you'd see from the typical KKK or Alt Right guy.
Anyway; With women, what I've been trying to point out is, they can influence society too. They've got bad eggs too. They've got messed up bits too. Turns out, not all women are good, not all men are good. I'd say it's probably pretty damn equal, over all, in terms of the ratio of bad men to bad women. My biggest complaint here is really down to that I just don't think either group is so
bad that society would literally collapse into a dystopian hellscape without one or the other.
I'd say that's a very divisive item. Personally, I think Trump's a pretty nice guy. He's just a dick to some people, and, gotta be honest, usually people who deserve it.
But, yeah, he doesn't really reak of "biggest and baddest". Honestly, I've always got the impression of a carnival stuffed bear. Boisterous, a tad crude, but still quite harmless.
Also, I definitely don't think Trump's brain dead.
Near as I can tell, he's pretty damn clever. He's just a loudmouth, and tends to act without careful thought. But, I really don't think anyone can honestly say a guy who made it as successfully as he did is stupid.
Don't really know many tyrants apart from him and Kim, and, Kim's definitely not exactly the epitome of masculinity. Rather babyfaced, and chubby.
Dunno how smart he is, but, I do know whoever set the whole thing up was definitely brilliant. You don't get one of the longest lasting tyrannical states ruled by a direct line dictatorship without being really clever. Especially while fending off two world powers. >Which one of those was a "buzzword"?
It's got as much water as referring to you as a "feminazi".
And that attitude just shows how someone like that could take power. You ignore the terrible, dehumanizing ways he acts and treats people because you identify with him and follow him.
Also, I'm not talking about their appearance when I say they tote themselves as masculine. Kim Jong Il literally convinces his followers that he's a physically perfect being who doesn't have to use the bathroom. It's about domination, not appearance. And it's something that he and Trump share. their claims to dominate those "weaker" than they are.
Also, it's not the same. "Incel" is the term that that group of people used to describe themselves
. "Feminazi" is a term used by one group to insult other groups of people they don't like and don't agree with. It's not a self-applied label.
Trump won because people became frustrated with a system that they perceived as being stagnant and dishonet. It was a stupid fucking decisions, but it wasn't just because he was an abrasive asshole, otherwise, the presidential lineup would look very different overall. We'd have an entire playbook of trumps.>>1632
Ok, purchase of jewelry by men then. Let's look at the diamond market in the united states. https://www.gia.edu/gia-news-research/survey-shows-diamond-sales-increased-last-yearhttps://www.businessinsider.com/who-spends-the-most-on-engagement-rings-2016-10http://www.diamondfacts.org/pdfs/media/media_resources/fact_sheets/Diamond_Industry_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Jewelry is consumed overwhelmingly by women, and in the case of the retailer i could find statistics for, 65-70% of their revenue is from millennial males intending to purchase for women, with the 2nd largest demographic being older males, also purchasing for women. Is the existence a 72 billion dollar industry held up essentially entirely by women's sexual selection enough to convince you that women's sexual selection has potent socioeconomic power?
Ironic, considering the last thread.>Kim Jong Il literally convinces his followers that he's a physically perfect being who doesn't have to use the bathroom
Not having to go to the bathroom isn't "masculine".
Hell, this is something I've heard far more often in regards to women. The whole "ladies don't poop" type of thing.
Are you just dumping absolutely any kind of domination, whatsoever, into the "masculine" camp?
If so, are women masculine? I mean, women have all sorts of domination items cropping up, in quite a wide number of different ways. My sister ran in to a lot of that back when she was little doing ballet.
Were those women "toxicly masculine"?>Also, it's not the same. "Incel" is the term that that group of people used to describe themselves.
You've applied it to someone else. So, obviously, in this context it isn't something used to "describe themselves". It's something used to, frankly, insult someone you don't agree with.
>>1636>Trump won because people became frustrated with a system that they perceived as being stagnant and dishonet.
All of this.>>1637
It's not exactly uncommon to buy jewelry for women you're dating, outside of marriage.
I don't see how the level of commitment is relevant. Sex is very common in marriage.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage
So getting married is often a major benchmark towards sexual success. It's certainly seen as a barrier in some circles, as it's still more socially acceptable to have sex within marriage than without, though this is admittedly rapidly chaining; Regardless, sex and marriage are certainly linked. The drive to have sex with a woman can exist both in a committed, and non-committed relationship, so i don't see your point.
Very few people go through the trouble of entering a committed relationship and purchasing expensive gifts JUST for sex. There are plenty of other, cheaper ways to have sex with a woman if that is your only goal.
Most people, atleast in western society, only enter into marriage because they feel a connection with a particular woman. And yeah, sex is involved, but it's usually not the driving factor in the decision to get married, because, as I said, there are easier, cheaper ways to get just sex.
So to say that purchase of diamonds shows that women's influence on sex means that have power over men is kind of silly. Almost no men are buying diamonds to get laid. They are buying diamonds because they like the woman they have having sex with already. >>1638
Not that, specifically, but I just used it as an example of ways he claims to his followers that he is a physically perfect being. Claiming physical superiority over others is a negative masculine trait. Like the guys you see "flexing" at the gym. It's a display of dominance. Il has made it so he doesn't have to use physical displays of dominance to coerce his followers. He's just convinced them that he is physically perfect, regardless of his actual (chubby) appearance.
And to answer your question, yes. Women are capable of promoting toxic masculinity. Like the one woman I mentioned in >>1631
. When women mistake toxic masculinity for true masculinity, and expect men to live up to toxic ideals, then they can become part of the problem. But not all women are like this. Most women I've met are not like this, and were far more open to me being me and not living up to some ridiculous macho ideal. Far more men were all about promoting the unrealistic macho facade.
Yeah, I don't buy that. Women who claim to be prettier than other women, or more flexible, or more popular, or whatever, they aren't "masculine". And that's absolutely a physical superiority example.
I think your standards're just going to bend to fit any negative example out there, at this point.
>>1641>But not all women are like this. Most women I've met are not like this, and were far more open to me being me and not living up to some ridiculous macho ideal. Far more men were all about promoting the unrealistic macho facade.
I've not had the same experience at all. If anything, most of the people in my life who have been supportive of me have been my male friends, and while my female friends never exhibited "toxic masculinity" towards me, it wasn't uncommon for them to exhibit these behaviors towards various other men behind their backs, and even moreso towards other women. On the other hand, my best friend in college appeared, on the surface, to be pretty toxically masculine. He was loud, took up a lot of dreaded space, and even a tad violent at times for what often appeared to be for little reason, but in reality, he was always there to listen to my problems with nothing but respect and compassion, even when it was, in hindsight, me just bitching when i should have taken on more responsibility in my life. My female friends may have offered token generic sympathy, but never real genuine intent to help me. When he was violent, it was because he wasn't giving in to people posturing and trying to intimidate the room. He'd call them on every play, and sometimes that lead to violence. He's still a good friend to this day.
People poking fun at your flaws is as often an invitation to help fix them as it is malice, I've found in my life experience. Maybe yours is different, and i can respect that, but it's possible that you misinterpreted people's intentions at times.
Also, women just being passive and not rocking the boat with someone likely bigger and stronger and able to hurt them isn't necessarily compassion.
>>1633>I think that's far more to do with the fact that nobody's argued that women are terrible
No one argued that men were terrible. That was assumed by previously troublemakers. >probably should all be killed off, and that society'd be better without them.
Again, more assumptions by the two trouble-making posters when someone dared to explore the possible outcomes of a male-less society. No one has accused anyone else of advocating the killing of women or that society would be "better off" without them in this thread when people explored what societal woes they thing women cause or exacerbate. Why is this different? Also, no one started trying to justify racism because of it. > while citing statistics irregardless of any potential social reasons for those statistics.
Those statistics still apply. If men commit 98.9% of forcible rapes, 89.5% of homicides, 87.9% of all robberies, 85.0% of all burglaries, 77.8% of aggravated assaults, 83% of arson and make up 90% of street gang membership, then nearly all of those things would only decrease by small amounts in an all-male society. With maybe the exception of rape, but male-on-male rape is still a huge problem, more than likely under reported and would likely increase in an all-male society.
You were the OP, right? I was thinking of you, in that regard. You seemed to spend quite a lot of time saying that men were inherently violent, cruel people, not to mention arguing rather strongly that a society without men would be superior.
I don't think, especially given your current arguments, it was a stretch to feel your perspective is that men are bad.> No one has accused anyone else of advocating the killing of women or that society would be "better off" without them in this thread when people explored what societal woes they thing women cause or exacerbate.
Yes, mainly because, again, nobody's decided to push the idea that women are inherently terrible, and that the world'd be far better without them.>Also, no one started trying to justify racism because of it.
Again; Nobody was.
People were demonstrating your hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, it seems that doing so is not allowed on this site. People can dehumanize men, just not black people, I guess.>Those statistics still apply. If men commit 98.9% of forcible rapes, 89.5% of homicides, 87.9% of all robberies, 85.0% of all burglaries, 77.8% of aggravated assaults, 83% of arson and make up 90% of street gang membership, then nearly all of those things would only decrease by small amounts in an all-male society
You're assuming it's inherently because
they are men.
It's why I'm suggesting here that you've got some extreme dislike towards men, pushing pretty clearly into the realm of sexism.
I can cite black crime statistics, but that doesn't mean they're committing crime because they're black. There's social and economic factors involved that go beyond one's race or gender.
I don't have to answer that. Not only does it violate the spirit of anonymity of this board, it's only going to derail this person's thread if those two trouble-making posters decide not to control themselves again.
And you keep saying that I think men are bad, and I keep pointing out to you that that is absurd because I
am a man. I don't think that I'm a bad person or that I lack empathy or that the world would be better without me, nor do I think that of my male friends. Those are all assumptions those two anons made, and in my opinion, did so on purpose to derail the thread. So much so that one of them went on to accuse the modstaff of advocating genocide in several threads and got upset when no one took the bait and insulted and smeared someone I hold in high regard in the process.
But regardless of that this thread has said FAR worse things about women than the other thread said about men. The last thread sited statistics about who commits the majority of crimes. That's it. It pointed out men commit the most crimes. This thread, however, has attributed the actions of serial killers to women, and blamed them for the toxic attitudes that men themselves hold. If we apply the same "logic" those two trouble-making posters applied to the last thread to this one, this thread is making an argument that a world without women would be better for society because then the people they feel uphold toxic masculinity would be gone. But that would be an inaccurate portrayal of what is being said, atleast, I hope. Well that sentiment goes both ways. You can't say applying something one way is sexist and calling for men to be killed and applying it the other way isn't calling for the same thing of women. That would be hypocritical and transparently dramatic.
File: 1568070995706.png (35.28 KB, 1806x201, 602:67, Manleytownhall.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>1652>And you keep saying that I think men are bad, and I keep pointing out to you that that is absurd because I am a man.
Just because you are
something doesn't mean you can't think something about said thing.
A black man can express racism to black people. A woman can be sexist towards women. >I don't think that I'm a bad person or that I lack empathy or that the world would be better without me, nor do I think that of my male friends.
No, but you do
appear to assume that the majority of men lack empathy, and that without women, we'd devolve into a mad-max society.
If I had suggested that, while I know some black people are smart, a society of only black people would devolve into violence, you'd call me a racist. And rightly so.>did so on purpose to derail the thread.
You don't think it could at all be because you've expressed some incredibly harmful views?>So much so that one of them went on to accuse the modstaff of advocating genocide in several threads and got upset when no one took the bait and insulted and smeared someone I hold in high regard in the process.
Well, that's just plain inaccurate, isn't it.
The claim was rather cleanly that the staff allowed
avocation of genocide, and dehumanization, of select groups. Not all groups, just some.>But regardless of that this thread has said FAR worse things about women than the other thread said about men.
Has anyone sat here saying that women are biologically inferior? Have they said that they're inherently violent? That they inherently lack empathy? That a world with only women would be a mad-max dystopia?> The last thread sited statistics about who commits the majority of crimes. That's it. It pointed out men commit the most crimes.
And used that as a justification, much in the same way the Alt Right or the Nazis did, to claim that men as a group are a problem.
To argue in favor of a 'yes' answer to the idea that "women alone would create a better society".
If I had said "I believe that white people would create a better society without black people. Going by statistics..." exactly the same way as you did, I'd be called a racist.
Hell, as we've found out in that prior thread, I'd probably be banned.
But it seems unfortunately that "dehumanizing language" doesn't apply to men.>This thread, however, has attributed the actions of serial killers to women, and blamed them for the toxic attitudes that men themselves hold.
At this point I'm suspecting you can't really articulate people's arguments in an honest manner.
I certainly didn't, and I would not say Charitable Porpoise did, either. Near as I can tell his argument was more to point out how women influence social norms and standards. Especially since the example he used was a single hypothetical
as opposed to your generalizing about a supposed majority of men, so much so that a society run by them'd devolve into Mad Max.>If we apply the same "logic" those two trouble-making posters applied to the last thread to this one, this thread is making an argument that a world without women would be better for society because then the people they feel uphold toxic masculinity would be gone.
No, if we apply the logic of those prior two posters, nothing'd come up, because nobody's been sitting here citing crime statistics in the same way that the Alt Right do.
All that's being suggested here is that women are who chooses their mate, as men have to approach them. They are who decides what traits are rewarded or punished. Without them, it's hard to say how society'd end up, but, I doubt it'd be significantly better or worse. I think it'd be more or less the same.
Same way for if there were no men. I certainly don't " believe that women would create a better society without men", as you put it.>You can't say applying something one way is sexist and calling for men to be killed and applying it the other way isn't calling for the same thing of women
Oh, no, this thread was made primarily as a parody, and a bit of protest, to the prior reaction to the last
It's not made here because anyone actually wants women to be killed off, or even thinks a society without women'd be better.
It's here because the other thread should've been locked from the start.
>>1580>Would men alone create a better society than the current one?
Probably.>would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
No, we do not get rid of people based on protected characteristics. It could only be justice if performed by an authority above rules about protected characteristics, such as a state.
I don't see it as a personal attack. Especially considering he is more than likely one of the people who ruined the last thread, but they hypocritically made the exact same thread just to show what would happen if he didn't ruin the other one. >>1658
What makes you feel like men would create a better society?
Justice doesn't really come from the state, though. Like, it isn't inherent in being an authority.
You can have an authority that behaves in an unjust manner.>>1660
I'd say your usage of the same argumentations pushed by the far right ruined the last thread, personally.
I suppose it could be argued that, if people didn't get upset at your sexist and dehumanizing argumentation, the thread would've continued fine. But, that's a rather silly idea, near as I can tell.
>>1666>What argument? That prejudice against men isn't ok? That's not just a far right thing, that's an argument anyone not on the extreme fringes of social justice should be able to agree on.
I completely agree. That's my issue. The last thread was rather heavy on the prejudice against men. That's my trouble.
The arguments, specifically, I was reffering to were the use of crime statistics without consideration for social or economic factors, to say that men are simply more inclined to be violent criminals, and that society as a whole would be superior without men.
Basically set forward with much the same style that you'd find from the alt-right types, about black people.
Anyone can judge an authority to be unjust, and do something about it.
There's countless examples of this throughout history. That's what causes most revolutions.
Justice does not come from authority, at all. It's not to got anything to do with what an authority is over, or what they can decide on, or who they can pass judgement on. It's about, in its most simplistic form, fairness.
More like, ideally, they reach the primary consensus of those who are under that system of authority.
Mind, this isn't necessarily raw number population, and it should ideally be built under a fair and standardized set of rules, as just arbitrarily doing whatever the masses demand isn't likely to retain any justice.
That, and like I said, it also keeps out the emotional feelings and personal biases, ideally. Justice should be a cold, calculated thing, after all. > What is an authority on which authorities are ideal?
Not sure what you mean. If you're meaning, who decides if the authority is acceptable, that would be the people.
if that authority is not acceptable, they work to change it, either by peaceful means, or revolution.
Yes. Though keep in mind, people often accept what is not ideal, simply because it's better than the potential alternative.
IE, I don't explode the local government offices because I know that between war, chaos, and the likely corrupt system that comes after, it'll be worse off.
Except the two arguments aren't really comparable because one hasn't be used to historically dehumanize a group of people and isn't actually being seriously considered by hate groups.
That's what Moony tried to explain to those trouble-making posters, but they instead ignored him and tried to smear him on other boards. When really, they could have handled that thread the same way they are handling this one.
I'm more in to principles and equal treatment. Which means, if you're using something to dehumanize a group of people, regardless of if they've ever been dehumanized by anyone else before, it's still a shit thing to do.> When really, they could have handled that thread the same way they are handling this one.
Like I said earlier: Nobody's decided to start making the same sort of arguments that the white nationalists do in this thread.
Well, except for you, anyway.
No need to demonstrate the hypocricy has been required yet, which means that nobody's needed to bring up how these arguments are used to dehumanize others historically, and so nobody's getting unfortunately warned because they don't think it's okay to dehumanize in that manner, and wanted to point out the hypocrisy of saying it is.
Nobody has presented the same sort of arguments you typically see from white nationalists in this thread.
The mods do not have to step in, because nobody's having to demonstrate the hypocrisy of using the same sorts of arguments you get from the alt right, while saying that's bad.
If you want me to say both threads shouldn't be allowed, sure. I'll do that. I completely agree that it would be far better if staff simply forbade such topics, since they've stated that it would not be okay to make a thread like this with men replaced by "black people".
I take it you assume that the thread was intentionally
'destroyed', and it wasn't 'destroyed' by virtue of people having to demonstrate and argue with a guy literally saying the world would be better off without men?
If so, I'm afraid I don't think there's much I can do to convince you, since I've stated why that thread got wrecked several times already. It seems to me you're convinced that everyone's out to get you.
Only ever really seen that kind of heavy paranoia and refusal to believe anything people actually say out of one other poster, but, from what I understand, he was permabanned. Maybe that was just a rumor. Or maybe it was only in regards to /pony/.
Either way, I'm afraid while I sympathize with your evident fear of anyone who disagrees with you, to some degree anyway, I'm not inclined to let you continue misrepresenting others, so I'll have to continue saying you're wrong here.
Actually, they have been. The same statistics were posted in >>1648
, and the same justifications used for why an all male-society wouldn't have less crime.
The only difference is how those trouble-making posters reacted. Instead of intentionally trying to derail and destroy this thread, the people in this thread counter-argued like they should. And no one resorted to racism and continued to do so when the mods told them not to here. Nor did anyone flock to other boards to try and smear Moony's name over their own bruised ego.
And you got a similar reply to last time, pointing out why it was nonsense, and referencing specifically the last thread.>>1649>"I can cite black crime statistics, but that doesn't mean they're committing crime because they're black. There's social and economic factors involved that go beyond one's race or gender.">. Instead of intentionally trying to derail and destroy this thread, you counter-argued like you should
Yeah, just fuck off with that shit. I never "intentionally derailed and destroyed" anything.
People were arguing against your incredibly bigotted and dangerous outlook. That was all.
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're out to get you, Manley.> And no one resort to racism and continued to do so when the mods told you not to here.
Nobody resorted to racism prior, either.
The problem was that apparently even saying the arguments that white nationalists use to demonstrate their similarity to your own is somehow "racist" to the staff.
But, hey, you want to go back to your usual technique of lying about people, that's your prerogative.
I was in the other thread, and i didn't smear moony at all. I did think it was odd that a warning was given to me for calling the OP a radical feminist, which doesn't seem to me like a big leap of logic considering the OP, but whatever, and pointing out my opinion that avocation of a destruction of a group isn't as bad as calling someone a radical feminist, and as such, i thought it wasn't right for my post to be warranted of moderation while the OP got a pass. That's it. I never insulted or spoke ill of the staff, just of that one judgement. And i think the troublemaker would be the one who started all this in the first place, which would be the original OP of the first thread, not me for avocation of gender equality and derision for mass group extermination.
I don't think historical prejudice is relevant. I don't think a prejudice being new makes it ok. I understand where people are coming from with it, and can respect your clearly different opinion on the matter, but me not agreeing with you does not make me a troll or a troublemaker or an incel or far right or whatever other derisive label you wish to apply to me. It means we disagree.
It's possible you've gotten too emotional about this issue, and maybe it would be good to take a step back before posting again.
A few more things to note:>>1648>No one argued that men were terrible. That was assumed by previously troublemakers.
Citing statistics in a way that implicitly argues that men cause all the worlds problems and proposing that the world might be better off without them is a pretty strong implication that men are terrible. If the world is better off without someone, doesn't that imply that group is terrible?>Again, more assumptions by the two trouble-making posters when someone dared to explore the possible outcomes of a male-less society. No one has accused anyone else of advocating the killing of women or that society would be "better off" without them in this thread when people explored what societal woes they thing women cause or exacerbate. Why is this different? Also, no one started trying to justify racism because of it.
It's not different, It's the same. I explicitly said as much earlier here. >>1598>Those statistics still apply. If men commit 98.9% of forcible rapes, 89.5% of homicides, 87.9% of all robberies, 85.0% of all burglaries, 77.8% of aggravated assaults, 83% of arson and make up 90% of street gang membership, then nearly all of those things would only decrease by small amounts in an all-male society. With maybe the exception of rape, but male-on-male rape is still a huge problem, more than likely under reported and would likely increase in an all-male society.
We already covered this... Societies have roles to fill, E.G. cook, caretaker, soldier, organizer, ect. If societies have all these roles at various frequencies, they simply run better. A society would not, for instance, function if everyone was, say, a lumberjack. We'd have all the wood in the world, and then starve because nobody knows how to farm or cook. So a society functions only within certain job frequency parameters, and those parameters largely manifest as socioeconomic pressures. Right now, men are expected to be the active gender, that's the role society has thrust upon them. That means they'll commit more crimes not due to natural evilness, but due to the roles they've been given by society. And pointing out the similarities to racial statistics, which i will take the opportunity to do now, isn't advocating racism. It's saying your way of thinking is wrong, just like that way of approaching racial statistics is wrong. If anything, the more racist view is yours, since if your argument makes sense, then so does the argument for racial superiority by citing black crime statistics, ergo, your view is the one that is more closely tied to racist beliefs, since you're the one making the argument similar to arguments made to support racism: That if a group has statistically caused more crimes, the world might be better off without them. That's your argument, as i understand it, not mine. If I've misunderstood your argument, please explain the difference between my understanding of your argument and your actual argument so i can understand where your coming from better. My argument has always been that societies have socioeconomic niches to fill, and regardless of group composition (I.E. how many blacks/whites/men/women ect), those niches will be filled, but there are social pressures that end up sorting these roles by gender or race or what have you largely out of the control of individuals. AKA we're all basically equal by nature, but society guides us into certain socioeconomic roles based on an absurdly complicated web of implicit bias and historical precedent. Therefor, changing the group composition to 100% male or 100% female won't change things in the long run, because we're all equal, and socioeconomic roles will be filled regardless.
If you think any of these arguments make me a "troublemaker", please point out the specific arguments you have grievances about, and why you think they make me so.
If you have a rational argument against this argument, i'm happy to read it. If you just want to call me names, i am not.
>>1672>If what you say is true, I would want to know the function of authorities.
I would say the purpose of authorities is division of labor. People feel that justice needs to be meted out, but if everyone had to deal with that all the time they wouldn't be able to finish other tasks, so they appoint someone else to do it full time. They try to choose someone with a fair sense of justice to perform the job, but since everyone disagrees on what would be ideal there's a lot of fighting over exactly who should be an authority. Further, since authorities hold so much power, people will frequently lie about how just they are in order for people to appoint them, or worse, simply take authority by force.
I would say that authorities don't really deserve respect, in that regard. In fact, they deserve as much disrespect as possible. The job should be miserable in order to prevent people from seeking it out.
File: 1568183614345.png (61.9 KB, 182x230, 91:115, 1441560873621.png) ImgOps Google
I'm going to remind both of you that Townhall adheres to a stricter policy on civil behavior than other boards. Be careful not to devolve into a petty squabble over past grievances, and focus on the topic at hand.
I think the proper response is you must respect authorities or you should seek help.
I think authorities are either needed or not, and if they are needed then they are good.
>>1690>the topic at hand.
Ok. Well then I'll reiterate.
An all male society would not be "better" with the criteria presented in the OP. Men commit 98.9% of forcible rapes, 89.5% of homicides, 87.9% of all robberies, 85.0% of all burglaries, 77.8% of aggravated assaults, 83% of arson and make up 90% of street gang membership. Nearly all of those things would only decrease by small amounts in an all-male society. With maybe the exception of rape, but male-on-male rape is still a huge problem, more than likely under reported and would likely increase in an all-male society.
Furthermore, an all-male society would be susceptible to the wide-spread proliferation of the negative aspects of masculinity (sometimes called "toxic masculinity"). Power (in all it's forms not just physical) and domination would come to be the most important things in that society, much like what is seen in post-Apocalyptic fiction like Mad Max. And the men of this society would promote this notion, as some do now, as the only true expression of masculinity. Compassion, empathy and emotional vulnerability would be seen as weakness. All we have to do is look at how men treat other men in the current male-dominated cultures we have now. Think about the armed forces or college fraternities. Glorifying those negative traits of masculinity as the only way to be a "true" man is the norm there. Without women and femininity as a counterbalance, an all-male society would violently tear itself apart. The weak would be trodden upon and healthy expressions of emotion would be branded AS weakness.
I've hung around plenty of male-dominated spaces, generally nerd centers like dnd groups or game shops, and they're nothing like that at all. When i went to try out a new game there, a group of 5 men were incredibly kind to me. They taught me the game, walked me through every aspect of it, and straight up gave me new game pieces that cost upwords of $20 each, probably totaling in over $400 of game pieces just because they liked seeing more people interested in it and they were nice. There wasn't a single woman involved, and they were nothing but angels to me. You're cherry picking your examples.
Also, the movies heathers or mean girls are pretty good example of how a female-dominated society can be just as power and domination-driven as a male one. The heathers and plastics of the world are at least as inherently vicious, and the only reason they don't use violence is because, based on social expectations, it wouldn't be as effective in maintaining power and dominance, because it would go against socially enforced gender roles. The moment it became effective, they would slit as many throats as they thought they could get away with.
Meanwhile, if we look to another fps game, one with twice the percentages of women than other fps, we get one of the most toxic game communities to ever exist. https://www.pcgamesn.com/overwatch/overwatch-female-player-count
So clearly a space being male-dominated doesn't result in a more toxic culture or environment.
Men are not incapable of those things. But they are considered weak in male society and those who express it are considered unmanly. This would only be compounded and exacerbated in an all-male society with no counterbalance to temper that aggression.>>1700
I'm not familiar with those movies, and I believe both of those movies were comedies, exaggerated for the sake of humor. If we exclude fiction from this, we still have male-dominated societies that run on that kind of mentality. Fraternities, armed forces, gym culture etc. It's how men interact with each other. Even people I considered friends would mock any non-stereotypically masculine interests I had. Not in a malicious way, but it's still part of male culture to do that. Would you tell your male friends you really like rom-coms, or musicals?
As said, it just doesn't seem accurate to reality, near as I can see.
The assumption that a society would devolve without women into a mad max dystopia where nobody ever feels empathy or compassion just seems flatly sexist, near as I can see.>I'm not familiar with those movies, and I believe both of those movies were comedies, exaggerated for the sake of humor.
If it helps, I know from the unfortunate stories and occasional tears of my sister that girls can be incredibly catty, downright cruel, and just plain bitches.
She used to be in ballet. I don't know if it was jealousy, or if it was just the climate there, but, those girls were some of the meanest people out there, near as I can tell. Left her unfortunately antisocial for some time. A bit of a shame, but, it also actually killed her interest in ballet, as a profession. She was really talented, but, the way those girls tore her down sometimes was rather brutal.
>>1703>I'm not familiar with those movies, and I believe both of those movies were comedies, exaggerated for the sake of humor
Exagerated, but based on a truth, yes? I also have little sisters, and i've literally had to pull them off each other to stop them from seriously injuring each other over toothbrush usage. Maybe you just haven't been around women that much in your life, so you see what they present themselves as, and not what they can really be like.>If we exclude fiction from this, we still have male-dominated societies that run on that kind of mentality. Fraternities, armed forces, gym culture etc.
Have you been in the armed forces? Or a fraternity? Or part of a gym? Because if you haven't, you're largely just basing your opinion on uninformed outside observers.>It's how men interact with each other.
Weird, because i'm a man, who interacts with other men, and it's looked nothing like this.>Would you tell your male friends you really like rom-coms, or musicals?
Yes! I would! And i do! And they like them too, as long as they're well thought out and good! One of those friends is even ex-military! That happens all the time! You might just have shitty friends!
Not when it's simply being used to show that his statement that something is always one way is wrong. I'm not denying that male spaces can be toxic, they certainly can be, but they can also be considerate, caring, open places.
As i understand it, he was arguing that male spaces tend to overall have negative cultures. I was providing a counterexample. As he has already stated examples of toxic male communities, it's not necessary to include examples of negative spaces, as he has already covered that.
>>1708>As i understand it, he was arguing that male spaces tend to overall have negative cultures. I was providing a counterexample.
If the statement is that male spaces tend
to have negative cultures, then a single counterexample doesn't really cut it. Perhaps one or both of you should look up information and statistics on the subject.
Not me, though, I'm too tired.
I'm not really sure where one would find satistics on something as vague as toxicity.
I'm also a tad skeptical of how representative of the population they'd actually be.
I can only say for myself that, by large, most of the men I've dealt with have been incredibly supportive, understanding, compassionate, and empathetic.
Both in terms of online, and offline. And I don't think I hung out in particularly soft areas, either, given my own personal interests.
Thinking about it, that might explain why women could reasonably perceive that the higher concentration of men in a group, the more toxic. If it's their perspective, there have to be a few women, and thus they're seeing the (enough women to perk up romantic interest, but not enough to go around) stage, and notice that the more women added, the less toxicity (romantic interest perked, but more even ratio means there's enough to go around). They'll never really be able to see the (no women, no romantic interest piqued, happily getting along based on the common interest) stage.
I'd be more inclined to say a rather shoddy game combined with an overbearing anti-toxicity system make for aggressive and uncontent users, myself.
I find games that give players freedom to be assholes tend to balance themselves out, as toxic individuals can be properly responded to.
But I have no way to demonstrate that, in any case.
I don't play overwatch, either
Overwatch... the video game? You're going to have to explain your reasoning to people who don't play the game. My experience with online video games is that they are VERY toxic enviroments with tons of toxic masculinity around, and that the presences of women amplifies these attitudes. Usually in the form of rampant sexism directed at them. >>1707>Exagerated, but based on a truth, yes?
I have no idea. As a man, I cannot partake in female-only groups and activities. >Have you been in the...
I haven't been in those things specifically, but I've seen the behavior of men who have when they came back from those things. Moreover, I've been part of many male-only groups and seen their behavior up close. Toxic masculinity is rampant. >>1706>a society would devolve without women into a mad max dystopia where nobody ever feels empathy or compassion
Not that no one feels it, that no one is allowed to feel it. That those things won't be valued as much as strength and domination, and those who choose to feel them or show them would be stepped on
>>1718>Overwatch... the video game?
Yes.>You're going to have to explain your reasoning to people who don't play the game. My experience with online video games is that they are VERY toxic enviroments with tons of toxic masculinity around.
Depends on the game. Warframe had a pretty decent community. Dark souls actually had a pretty great community. PVE-focused games seem to, unsurprisingly, foster healthier, more productive social environments in my experience. The smaller communities and games tend to be better off, as well, in my experience. Little niche projects tend to have devoted, positive communities. That's been my experience anyway. Big popular shooters tend to be toxic af.>I have no idea. As a man, I cannot partake in female-only groups and activities.
While i don't have any hard evidence to offer, or even know what that would look like, the behavior I've seen my sisters exhibit doesn't fall too far from it.>Not that no one feels it, that no one is allowed to feel it. That those things won't be valued as much as strength and domination, and those who choose to feel them or show them would be stepped on
You say yourself though in this very same post...>My experience with online video games is that they are VERY toxic enviroments with tons of toxic masculinity around, and that the presences of women amplifies these attitudes.
The presence of women amplifies these attitudes. I agree. This means that if there's no women, these attitudes are less exhibited, yes? Therefore, if there are no women, this behavior largely disappears! That's not an unreasonable extrapolation, no? That's what i'v been saying this whole time! Ergo, if there's no women in the world, men don't act like that!
No, that's not what i'm saying at all!
You completely misrepresented what I was saying. These video game environments don't go from peaceful to toxic when you add women. That's a horribly sexist attitude. They go from being toxic to being even MORE toxic, with that toxicity being directed toward
women. Mostly because of sexist attitudes so common in the young men who play these games, and attitudes towards women supposedly "invading" their all-male spaces.
So you go from an environment where homophobic slurs are being thrown around freely to try and emasculate others to an environment where everyone is piling sexism on the outsider. It's just as ridiculous to blame women or the presence of women for sexism as it is to blame minorities for the existence of racism.
>>1718>My experience with online video games is that they are VERY toxic enviroments with tons of toxic masculinity around, and that the presences of women amplifies these attitudes.
I have no idea if they presence of women amplifies anything here, but I can say that my experience online had been the complete opposite. My experience in online gaming had been incredibly supportive. Most notably in the 8chan Warframe crew.
Those guys were awesome. Everyone just wanted to help out, no matter what you needed. We always had fun.
Going to be honest, man, I'm starting to think you're basing your understanding of both men and games off of feminist nonsense, rather than actual experience.
I'll tell you straight up: I've never seen any women get attacked just for their gender in any of the games I've played.
Not even Gmod, and that's entirely populated by asshole 13 year old squeekers
That's fair, that's just still personal anecdote and not indicative of a trend.>>1713
My hypothesis wouldn't line up. I'd say the reason Overwatch is "toxic" is that it's inherently a fast paced competitive game. There's nary a game out there that's focused on PvP and yet somehow relaxed and friendly. That this is almost ubiquitous implies to me that the cause is the games themselves and not the genders therein. Overwatch would be toxic if it was all men, all women, or some mixture.
There are plenty of accounts of online sexism from real women out there if you care to look. Writing off their concerns as "feminist nonsense" just because you don't personally experience it is a dangerous mindset to have. I HAVE seen sexism toward women online. Lots of it. So I have no reason to deny these claims.>>1727
What definition are you using for "bigotry" here, because the way you just used it doesn't really line up with how I've seen it used. It's not "bigoted" to point out the toxic aspects of male culture.
The problem is that all we really have here is personal anecdotes.
bad in crime statistics, by wish by the same logic you can make the claim that the world would be better without black people. Which is why I don't like using that kind of arguments. It's dangerous.
The problem at hand is that he assumes one thing about a group of people, and that runs completely contrary to anything I've experienced. I can't really site anything, because I've never seen anything like that done, so all I can do is express my disagreement with his attitude towards men.>>1732
If you say so. Still, I don't like the usage of such, given my complete lack of experience with it, and the as far as I can see rarity of it, to condemn an entire group. In this case both men, and gamers.
it's not really that I write it off as feminist nonsense, as much as that I think that you are basing your beliefs on this feminist activism, rather than anything actually experienced.
Unfortunately, feminist activists have a particular interest in claiming sexism or toxicity, be it in any form of medium, Or in men as a whole.
I am very much an inclined to take activists by their word, when it runs directly contrary to my own experience is on the matter. And it has the same reasoning, frankly, as why I wouldn't take the white nationalists word, in regards to minorities. > It's not "bigoted" to point out the toxic aspects of male culture
you are correct, that wouldn't be. The problem is, near as I can tell, you're fabricating toxicity. Moreover, given the earlier discussion on dictators, it seems that you were applying attributes that are present in both men and women as a singularity email, and therefore toxic masculinity, trait.
That, to me, well falls within the category of bigotry.
Bigotry, as I would define it, is simply the unfair or unfounded judgment of others within a group, be it race, gender, location, or hobby.
Ah, so I should just go ahead and listen to white nationalist, and assume what they say about black people is true, right?
I shouldn't approach them with any skepticism?
>>1720>You completely misrepresented what I was saying. These video game environments don't go from peaceful to toxic when you add women. That's a horribly sexist attitude. They go from being toxic to being even MORE toxic, with that toxicity being directed toward women. Mostly because of sexist attitudes so common in the young men who play these games, and attitudes towards women supposedly "invading" their all-male spaces.
That's not how i see the situation at all. I see them trying to look cool and attract women, and they think being loud and obnoxious makes them alphas because they're dumb kids who don't know better. I do think there's other things at play as well, like some male players trying to play pick-up, and that causing others to feel resentment towards the women coming into the game for changing the social dynamics, which is usually not the fault of the women, and that's toxic, but it's not coming from (i hate women), it's coming from (i hate how these people have affected the social environment). Even then, i think the frequency and extent of these harassment incidents is blown entirely out of proportion to fuel a narrative. If this was so common, i probably would have seen it come up in overwatch, which i play pretty frequently, and while there's plenty of toxicity, none of it was gendered, mostly lack of teamwork and people just being really rude to each other in a general (i'm the best, you suck, all the problems are caused by you and i'm not causing any problems) kind of way rather than any gendered toxicity. That could just be because i play with discord groups when i play comp rather than randos, and that i play much much more QP than comp. Could be a lot of things, but I've not seen that, and overwatch seems like a prime target for this sort of behavior, and i've played just under 200 hour of that game in quick play, so you'd think it would have popped up.
I also don't think that changing of gendered spaces is necessarily an invalid argument, at least to some extent. I think that there's certain cultures to certain places, and that if you are a newcomer to that place, you should adapt to fit the culture, not demand that everyone conform to your needs. So if it's a competitive culture where everyone is happily at each other's throats, because that's the established culture, that's the game's culture that everyone's happy with, and you come in and demand everyone change to fit your taste, and they push back at you, then you're being as toxic telling them to change the established culture as they are for lashing out at you, if not more so. I don't think someone coming into a competitive, cut-throat environment and then being upset when it's a competitive, cut-throat environment and demanding everyone change is fair or right. Cultural imperialism isn't ok. >>1732>There are plenty of accounts of online sexism from real women out there if you care to look. Writing off their concerns as "feminist nonsense" just because you don't personally experience it is a dangerous mindset to have. I HAVE seen sexism toward women online. Lots of it. So I have no reason to deny these claims.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. I don't think anyone is saying these things don't happen, but i do think that with so many people playing so many hours of a game, it would be easy to get enough footage and testimony to prop up just about any narrative you wanted to. Plus, getting attention and playing victim is a lucrative prospect much of the time. There's an incentive to embellish the truth to look like more of a victim. But that's all maybe might be, and that's all either of us have. It's not like anyone's realistically going to be able to get clean data on this.
What? I don't follow your logic. You CAN listen to what a white supremacist has to say, but you should look into whether what they say is factually true. Not through your own experiences, but through research and accounts from other people who have experiences you may not.
Likewise, you shouldn't write off accounts of sexism as fabricated just because you don't experience sexism and don't practice it yourself. It helps no one to dismiss their personal experiences as lies.
Sure. Actual accounts and research, as opposed to their claims of their own experience, or declarations of assumed behavior.> It helps no one to dismiss their personal experiences as lies.
Depends. If their narrative is being used in order to propagate the idea that men as a whole are bad, and that society would be far better if men literally were Thanos'd out of existence, then, pointing out that they might have a particular bias, or reason to push a particular narrative might be beneficial. It might help combat a negative stereotype or assumption seemingly pushed by bigots.
So let me get this straight: When it's YOUR personal experiences, then it's gospel and can't be questioned. But when it's another person's, then it's fabricated and lies? That's a huge double standard. You can't dismiss other people's viewspoints as fabricated because you don't share them and then turn around and accuse others of lying based on nothing but your own personal viewpoint.
I mean, you get that, right? That no one has your viewpoint but you? That when you use your viewpoint as the basis for "reality", then you are asking people to do the very thing you refuse to do?>If their narrative is being used in order to propagate the idea that men as a whole are bad
That's not happening. Anywhere. Men are the one's in power. There is no secret plot against men by a woman collective. That's a dangerous and sexist mindset to have. It's being afraid of a mad-up boogie man doesn't and can never exist.
One person, a man mind you, who does not consider himself a feminist, made a thread about hypothetical situation so outlandish and hyperbolic no one should reasonably think it was a serious endorsement of anything. And a few people in that thread were so afraid of this fictional non-existent threat that they intentionally destroyed it, even after the modstaff asked them not to and then went to other boards to smear a member of the modstaff when they didn't get their way.
no, my personal experience can definitely be questioned. The main reason I brought up my own personal experiences was to demonstrate that your personal experience are not necessarily the end-all-be-all.
I don't think it would be right of me to claim that the world would be better off without black people, because I personally might have had bad experiences with them. Would you?
The reason that I have presented my own personal feelings, experiences, and understanding, is primarily to counteract yours. Because a claim like that can be dismissed with the same thing.
assertions based off of your experience can be dismissed with my experience, because that sets us off on square one. You've made a claim about male standards of behavior, and I've merely suggested that it is inaccurate.
If I had said "women are uncaring, cruel, and manipulative on the hole.", You could then reply "no they aren't, most every woman I've met has been kind and supportive.".
Those two arguments would hold the same value, and, due to the principles involved in simply assuming the best in people, you would end up with the preferred argument, as yours does not assume the worst. As a rule, we should try to avoid that.
At least that's how I've always dealt with it.>That's not happening. Anywhere. Men are the one's in power. There is no secret plot against men by a woman collective. That's a dangerous and sexist mindset to have. It's being afraid of a mad-up boogie man doesn't and can never exist.
You are the one who fucking said it.
I am not referencing some overarching Boogeyman, I am referencing specifically you. Nobody else, you.
Please, pay attention. You should have noticed that the arguments I was suggesting literally were yours.
you are the one who literally came into this thread saying that men would create a society out of a post-apocalyptic fantasy. You've decided that men are so terrible, any society created solely by men would be the equivalent of a nightmare dystopian future.
I am not citing some behind-the-scenes Boogeyman, I am specifically siding you and your actions.>And a few people in that thread were so afraid of this fictional non-existent threat that they intentionally destroyed it,
no they didn't. This is just you lying again.
Please refrain from lying about people.
>>1745>That's not happening. Anywhere. Men are the one's in power. There is no secret plot against men by a woman collective. That's a dangerous and sexist mindset to have. It's being afraid of a mad-up boogie man doesn't and can never exist.
People being in power in a general sense in no way, shape, or form prevents people from hating them. It doesn't stop people from skewing statistics or trying to make their life worse. It means pretty much nothing. It's not paranoia to look at a post saying "what if we got rid of this group of people entirely" and respond with "hey, that's pretty fucked up, maybe don't do that or promote it or say it's ok". Saying it can never exist is just dumb, i'm sorry. You're exceptionally close-minded if you think it's literally impossible. You don't think 20 women could get together and throw out a plan to hurt a bunch of men. You clearly don't think much of womens' abilities. That's pretty sexist.
I'd say the dangerous mindset is thinking that because your group isn't privileged that you're free to do whatever you want to, or say whatever you want about, that group.
Not to mention how generally harmful it is to just label men, and being a man, as so dangerous, toxic, and generally cruel.
It's no surprise that if you put men down as a whole in this manner, literally saying that a society without men would be better, you are going to hurt some people.
You're going to make people feel like they're bad, purely because of the gender they were born with. That's downright rotten, near as I can tell. Especially when you're tell him that person the world would be better off without people like him.
It's a huge part of why I was so bothered by the entire thread. Why I'm still annoyed now, really
That kind of sexist attitude does damage. And while I would always defend the right to say whatever you please, I am certainly going to argue against it.
>>1748>Saying it can never exist is just dumb, i'm sorry.
Saying The Infinity Gauntlet can't exist is dumb?
I mean, I applaud your optimism (pessimism?) but I've gotta say that's a bit of a stretch.
The OP never actually specified the Infinity Gauntlet. Rather, what it had said was>"Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human males, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological men would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist."
This could theoretically be accomplished a number of ways .Especially given the "once the process has begun" thing.
In any case, method is always irrelevant. The problem is the ideas being expressed here.
As is pointed out by the staff's saying a similar thread, but with 'men' replaced by 'black' would not be acceptable.
To be fair, they also said the original thread was fine, so, maybe it isn't really about the proposal of a fictional genocide as much as it is the target of the dehumanizing remarks.
File: 1568319168402.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google
Hoh, I'd be fascinated to see a virus that could see the 1% of a cell that contains the Y Chromosome and differentiate that from the rest of humanity. Would be taking a large risk making a virus so close to affecting women too.
File: 1568340081179.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google
Pretty sure women create testosterone as well. Same that men make estrogen. Would be a bad virus if it kills a woman because she decided to eat too much red meat one day.
File: 1568346030130.jpeg (68.17 KB, 559x491, 559:491, men-vs-women-testosterone….jpeg) ImgOps Google
You can set a cutoff threshold for testosterone level that pretty cleanly divides men from women. It's not perfect, but it would do the job pretty well.
>>1767>Do you disagree?
Yeah, I think I disagree.
Just for starters, none of that really fits the thought experiment. The experiment didn't specify the infinity gauntlet, but it did
specify they would "suddenly" disappear and it couldn't be stopped once set in motion. Slowly gathering political clout is not a sudden disappearance of half the population. It's a very very slow restriction
on half the population, which is at all points stoppable by simply choosing not to participate in politics because half of the species is losing. That's generally what people do when they're losing to politics, they say the system is rigged and they violently bow out.
Even going by your very moved goal posts of simply "hurting" a "large number of men" it seems unlikely, at the least, and if 20 women did
get together to hurt men they would almost surely lose support in the public eye because such a grand majority don't want that to happen. The event would be pointed at as proof that feminism is some kind of dangerous concept, even though it was a couple dozen people and obviously none of the other (real?) feminists agreed with the plan. I cannot see any way in which that could snowball into anything even nearby to the proposed thought experiment.
Is it sexist to say that? Also no. Because I don't think men would succeed in a plot like that, either. The incels that want to destroy all women out of revenge for not having sex are just as limited in number as the feminist extremists that are lashing out at the world for the time they were forced
to have sex. In both cases, even the majority of the side that isn't getting snapped away is strictly opposed to it happening.
And don't forget, the experiment is also reliant on the idea that we first
find a way to reproduce with only one gender, which is about as firmly in sci-fi territory as an engineered virus that targets a gender. And as sci-fi, that makes it a fun idea to think about. "What would society be like if we did this?" Some would argue that's even the definition of sci-fi. Exploring these questions is how we decide "No, we shouldn't aim for a gender homogenous society and we shouldn't kill half the population."
File: 1568348201724.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google
Seems you'll either allow killing women, or letting some men through the gaps either way with this system.
Assuming you can create a virus that will wait to attack someone based off of the testosterone they produce. Again, if a woman eats a lot of red meat one day or gets especially enraged she's fucked.
Personally, I'm still of the stance the method is completely irrelevant. The problem is the ideas expressed. The pushing that a world without men is inherently 'better', basically.
I would still be worried that, if a
solution were to ever present itself, let's say after cloning tech is developed, people like the OP of that thread might push for, say, restricting the cloning to only women.
Is it going to happen now
I'd say so, yeah.
And of course this is still leaving off the other potential hazards of this thinking. The assumption that the world'd be better off without men can lead to excusing rather harsh treatment. I'd make the case we're already seeing this. Especially with Cheeky's linking any domination of any kind to men, despite women being just as capable of it. 'Least when it's so loose as to claim someone saying they don't use the bathroom is "domination".
Who's talking about a pure democracy? People are going to stand for something they are morally opposed to just because a slight majority says it's ok.
The majority of people thing abortion is OK. It's still not legal everywhere
But the original premise EXPLICITLY says that it would be instant. Also, nice "supposedly" there. You don't really need to try and emasculate me because we don't agree.
Also, i'm not even sure why you're getting bent out of the shape about those statistics. In the original scenario, women would be committing %100 of the murders because there would be no men. And in your scenario, men are committing %100 of the murders.
I wasn't trying to emasculate you.
That's a big problem you have. You seem to assume the absolute worst in people. It's no wonder you think of society with only men would completely collapse, and that the world would be better off without them.
in any case, like I said, the specific premise of the office ultimately irrelevant to me, because I'm far more concerned with the ideas that had been expressed.
If somebody had said "If we had a way to magically get rid of every single Jew all at once, would the world be a better place?", with the OP answering "yes", I'm not inclined to ignore the blatant dangerous rhetoric said just because it isn't a realistic method of extermination that would ever occur.>Also, i'm not even sure why you're getting bent out of the shape about those statistics. In the original scenario, women would be committing %100 of the murders because there would be no men. And in your scenario, men are committing %100 of the murders.
So fucking what?
That is completely irrelevant to anything I've ever said here. It's got absolutely no bearing on any arguments presented here by me. near as I can tell, it doesn't have any bearing on anybody else's arguments either. Not even your own.
It's posts like these that make me wonder if you are actually bothering to listen to anybody, or examine anything they've said. Including yourself, for that matter.
Illegal immigrant is not a race, gender, or orientation. so once again, I fail to see any relevance of any kind to the given conversation.
You become an illegal immigrant by doing an action. Namely, entering a country illegally.
It is in no way shape or form comparable to a race or a gender. Saying so is frankly completely insane.
I am not a fan of removing people from existence in any capacity. Thanos snapping or otherwise.
I'm somebody that has a bit of a problem with the potential for AI, primarily because of the ethical questions involved with ever turning off an AI.
I think as a general thumb of rule if you're going to kill anyone you need to have a damn good reason for it. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty, when it comes to extreme cases. Primarily because I don't trust any system enough to be able to justify such an action to the absolute certainty required.
So what's the relevance of this question?
Does it have any?
Your other post in the other thread suggested you are in favor of a illegal immigrant free United States. So your only issue is the "killing" aspect of the scenario.
If we re-word the scenario to say that the men are simply relocated. Perhaps to another Earth-like planet with resources where the men could live, would you then stop having a cow?
I think that it's quite fair game to say it would be far better if people did not break your country's laws to get in, yes.>If we re-word the scenario to say that the men are simply relocated. Perhaps to another Earth-like planet with resources where the men could live, would you then stop having a cow?
Literally addressed that already
and maybe start actually fucking reading what I've said, instead of constantly asking irrelevant shit.>"Illegal immigrant is not a race, gender, or orientation."
You becoming illegal immigrants by doing something. You do not become a man by doing something. You just are a man. That is simply how you were born.
Judging people for violating the law, and judging people for what they happened to be born as, are two incredibly different items.
If you've paid attention to what I've said in this thread, it would have been obvious that the killing angle isn't my major issue here. My biggest problem oh, I would say, is the rather extreme sexism and bigotry.
But you write off all illegal immigrants as criminals, without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action. You're judging people based on a decision they may have made out of desperation. But you have no qualms with unilaterally removing them. Many of them didn't even MAKE a choice, and were brought here as infants.
Not to mention, you might claim it's not about race, but a negligible amount of the US's undocumented immigrants are white people. Like it or not, it's a racial topic.
You've spent all this time arguing over a ridiculous, hyperbolic scenario which could never, ever happen and calling out the "dangerous" outlook of the original OP. Yet you endorse things that can and are happening based on your own outlook on those people. I'd say that's pretty hypocritical.
Because they literally are here illegally. As in they are present within the United States in violation of the laws of the United States.>without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action.
Yes, that is accurate. That is because I have principles.
It is never okay to steal, for example, regardless of your circumstances.>Many of them didn't even MAKE a choice, and were brought here as infants.
And in those cases I think there's a lot more room to explore.
That said, I don't consider being sent back to your original home harmful, and as such, do not see it as wrong to send those people back.
I wouldn't hold them, as though they've committed a crime, if that's what you mean. Because like you say, they would have committed it when they were young, without choice.
but like I said, I think there is room for leniency, to a degree. I wouldn't mind giving them preferential treatment for proper application of citizenship, for example, if they have been here for a long time.>Not to mention, you might claim it's not about race, but a negligible amount of the US's undocumented immigrants are white people. Like it or not, it's a racial topic.
I disagree. I think that unless you are a racist, race is irrelevant to that discussion.
I do not equate an action to a race because a lot of those who do that action are that race.
That seems to be an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Hell, once again, you're using the same arguments as the white nationalists.>You've spent all the time arguing over a ridiculous, hyperbolic scenario which could never, ever happen. Yet you endorse things that can and are happening based on your own outlook on those people. I'd say that's pretty hypocritical.
How the fuck would you know?
you've spent most of your time here misrepresenting me, assuming things about me, ignoring anything I've actually said to you, and generally just making shit up.
What the fuck do you know about my principles?
You haven't bothered to even examine them.
To be clear, too, the thing that I "endorsed"?
It was a fucking wall.
It doesn't even do anything to the people who are already here. But somehow, a literal physical barrier between your country and another, is racist. An inanimate object is racist. You're a bad person for supporting the construction of a physical barrier to prevent people from entering in illegally, and this is apparently on par with literal genocide.
So even if we assume everything you say about immigrants is 100% accurate,the people who are in here don't deserve to be judged in any capacity, it's still completely irrelevant. Because I wasn't doing that at all.
Are you for real, here?
Is this just some kind of elaborate troll attempt?
Are you just that desperate for a victory that you're willing to site absolutely anything you can steal as far as possible to hopefully try to justify what you said?
Another great example of a massive false dichotomy.
People's rights actually being violated does not equate to entering the country illegally.
try to think about what you are trying to say. I'm convinced at this point you literally are just typing things at random, in the hopes to piss me off
I am sick and tired of answering your irrelevant questions.
You should already know my answer by this point, too, given what I just said.
If you are just going to troll, I'm afraid I have no interest entertaining you further.
You told me not to assume things about your principles or your intentions. That's what I'm doing. So answer >>1787
You claim you're universally against illegal immigrants crossing the border because it is a crime. But you also (seemingly, since you did not directly answer) seem to think that it is OK to not comply with a law you think is unjust.
So which is it. Answer my question so there is no ambiguity. Do your "principles" dictate that an unjust law can be violated, or do they dictate that all laws must be followed as they are because they are laws. I'm not assuming your stance, I'm giving you an opportunity to explain it yourself.
I have already explained why it is irrelevant. If you want me to answer it, you are going to have to argue against what I had brought up, saying it was irrelevant.>But you also (seemingly, since you did not directly answer) seem to think that it is OK to not comply with a law you think is unjust.
And I answered why this would not apply in this instance. again, if you actually bother to read my post, instead of demanding an answer, you would have known this.
You do not have a right to enter in a country. Is not comparable to a slave trying to escape those who are violating his rights.>Do your "principles" dictate that an unjust law can be violated, or do they dictate that all laws must be followed as they are because they are laws
A law that violates your rights can be violated in turn.
A law that does not should not be.
It's really that simple. much in the same way that I would not have a right to go onto your property, regardless of my circumstances, somebody does not have the right to enter another country illegally.
No rights are being violated by building a wall whatsoever. No rights are being violated by requiring individuals wishing to go into a country to do so through legal means.
They should do it at a legal Port of entry.
Further, as I understand it, I saw them only applying to the nearest country, not just to the best country that you want to go to.
A wall does not violate their rights, even if we assume seeking asylum is a right. Which I don't necessarily agree with. I think it should be In place, because there are a lot of countries which will violate your rights, and not everybody has the resources to fight against said countries. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a right. It's more like a privilege the world has agreed should be in place, I would say.
In any case, a wall does not prevent you from seeking asylum.
If your "principles" say that a law can be violated when it violates someone's "rights", who decides what their "rights" are?
Slaves in the United States at that time had no rights under the law. Or at the very least, they had no right to freedom. So clearly, laws do not dictate what a person's "rights" are. Because under that definition, breaking the law to help slaves escape would not be allowed under your "principles". So what decides what a person's "rights" are? Do you arbitrarily pick them yourself? Do you believe in a higher power? Just trying not to assume anything about your intentions.
It's a bit of a longer subject.
Rights though have never required State approval. Otherwise States couldn't violate your rights.
And I would hope we both agree that Germany's actions during world war II towards the Jews was a blatant violation of human Rights. Certainly they don't get the excuse that, because they were the government doing it, it was acceptable, right?
It is my stance that governments exist specifically to protect our rights. That is the purpose of a government to begin with. That is why we have laws. They exist to prevent violations of our rights by other individuals.
We tend to use formal government in order to protect rights in this way for two reasons: strength, and justice.
Vigilantism, mob Justice, that type of thing, often results in innocent people getting hurt. A government can also do this, but it is ideally built in a way to prevent this as best possible.
The presumption of innocence, for example, is specifically for this purpose. If we presume innocence, until we have proven guilty, we are far less likely to end up with an unjust result which ends up violating somebody's rights.
In regards to what specifically rights are, it's a bit more of a complex philosophical matter, but I can give you my personal take when I get home and have a keyboard at hand.
In its most basic, I would say it is to do with the concept of property, and what you can do on your own.
File: 1568424954036.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google
So this theoretical virus that can somehow activate based on either the specific chromosome in a cell or the amount of testosterone in a body isn't bullshit enough on it's own. It needs additional support from the women of the world who outright want the complete eradication of men to happen.Assuming there's mostly total support, no railroads, no sterile areas, no resistance groups, and no men petty enough to take a chunk of the world with them as they die.
I am a tad curious, though, how you would answer these questions yourself, if you don't have any belief in rights.
Why must somebody seeking asylum be allowed into a country?
Why shouldn't we have slaves?
I hardly think that's accurate, since these rights questions only came up recently, and have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not we should judge people based on characteristics they are born with, in the same way we would with actions.
The only reason the rights question has come into play was because you kept bringing up irrelevant things, and I kept having to explain why they are irrelevant.
It's also incredibly annoying how you only respond to microscopic portions of my posts. Usually with the demand for something completely different, as though any other arguments presented are completely worthless to you.
It makes it rather difficult for me to justify writing out a large response to you. maybe instead of doing that, I should simply point you in the direction of the general philosophers throughout history who had wrote on rights. i
If you study a bit on American history, it should become pretty quickly clear. since you keep doing these single line replies, I think that's what I'm going to have to start doing. That or just posting videos explaining it since you won't listen to me near as I can tell.
File: 1568427301394.png (641.54 KB, 903x683, 903:683, Is this for real.PNG) ImgOps Google
I feel like I need to bring this up again;
Somehow, because I have an objection to judging people based on their gender, as in something they are literally born with, with no actions creating, I am a hypocrite, because I also think we should build a wall to prevent people from entering a country illegally.
Rights literally do not play into this at all. You don't have a right to not be judged for something you didn't do, it's just basic fairness.
I think this is just trying to drag people down a rabbit hole in the desperate hopes that you can avoid their actual augmentations. Because I don't think there is any reasonable way anybody could conflate a characteristic you are born with like gender to preventing people from crossing a border illegally.
Like, I'm not sitting here calling you a hypocrite for your stance on economics. I am fairly sure whatever your stance is on economics, it has nothing to do with your argument that the world would be better without men, right?
>>1800>if you don't have any belief in rights.
Woah! I NEVER said that. If you're going to accuse other people of misinterpreting your intentions, you should do well not to do the same. >>1801
It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before. These are questions you should have asked yourself long ago.
If you don't have concrete answers for what "rights" are and who decides those rights, and your base your principles, at least in part, on those "rights", then how can you expect anyone else to understand what your principles are and how they operate? >>1802
This has less to do with the OP and more to do with understanding your principles as you have set them forth in this thread. Without understanding those, it's hard to have a moral conversation about anything.
You still have not defined what you think "rights" are and who you think grants them.
>>1803>Woah! I NEVER said that. If you're going to accuse other people of misinterpreting your intentions, you should do well not to do the same.
I am a bit confused on where you think they come from, then.
As you put it, "So what decides what a person's "rights" are? Do you arbitrarily pick them yourself? Do you believe in a higher power? ">It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before. These are questions you should have asked yourself long ago.
I said nothing relating to this statement that makes it makes sense, so I'm going to assume it's a complete mistake on your part. I have no idea what it could be referring to, what it's implying, or what it's about. It looks like it's just completely randomly placed here. I can only assume you misread something.>If you don't have concrete answers for what "rights" are and who decides those rights, and your base your principles, at least in part, on those "rights", then how can you expect anyone else to understand what your principles are and how they operate
I do have those, it's just a pain in the ass to get to, especially over a cell phone.
The problem is that they are irrelevant to this conversation.>This has less to do with the OP and more to do with understanding your principles as you have set them forth in this thread. Without understanding those, it's hard to have a moral conversation about anything
my definition of Rights is irrelevant to the conversation in any capacity, though, that's my problem.
You've accused me of hypocrisy for something that does not conflate.
so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to call you a hypocrite because of your stance on men, because your standards for economics.
I'm going to require you to explain your standards for it economic matters in their entire complexity, in detail, and unless you do that, you're apparently hypocritical.
Would that make sense to you? Would that be justified? Would that not be a blatant nonsensical rabbit hole that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, but only exists so that you can try to move the goalposts around as hard as you possibly can, in order to attempt to prove yourself right?>You still have not defined what you think "rights" are and who you think grants them.
Because it is still irrelevant.
I'm going to need you to now to find your particular standards for what constitutes extremism, and the exact methodology of which the government should go to in order to combat said extremism.
If it's okay to just bring up random shit I am getting quite tired of letting you be the only one to do it.
File: 1568430811133.png (362.52 KB, 600x537, 200:179, 1540426152272.png) ImgOps Google
I'd say that there's a broad division between two kinds of rights: (1) basic human rights like free speech and self-defense, and (2) specific legal rights, like a right to collect Social Security benefits or as in a contract that grants you a right to buy a certain number of shares of a certain stock at a certain price on a certain day.
In regard to talk about basic human rights, I'd say that it's just an abbreviation for talk about what a system of ethics mandates. E.g., "Mallory infringed Alice's right R
" means that Mallory acted contrary what what the system of ethics requires in a specific way.
File: 1568431043729.jpeg (13.12 KB, 395x424, 395:424, D5ci1RYWwAEbj3Y.jpeg) ImgOps Google
Let's start over, because I'm just straight up going to ignore your pulling random irrelevant shit in from now on:
It is wrong to judge people for something they have not done.
This is why sexism and racism is wrong. You are assuming things about the individual not reflecting of the whole.
Rights do not come in to this rationale in any capacity whatsoever, so I'm going to have to ignore any rights nonsense, since they do not apply whatsoever.
We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions. >>1804>I said nothing relating to this statement that makes it makes sense
"It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before." is DIRECTLY a response to >I hardly think that's accurate, since these rights questions only came up recently>>1804>I do have those, it's just a pain in the ass to get to, especially over a cell phone.
You are free to wait until you have a computer to answer them. This isn't a race. >>1804>The problem is that they are irrelevant to this conversation.
Perhaps to the OP, but not to the conversation you and I are having at this moment about your principles.
You're only insisting they do not apply because you want the topic of our discussion to be something else. I want the topic of our discussion to be the clarification of your principles and how they relate to rights.
If you are unable to clarify your principles, then we can't use them or anyone else's as a measure of what is and isn't "right".
>>1807>We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions.
I have no interest in discussing it. It only came up because you decided to act like a dick and claim I was being hypocritical, by pointing to something that does not logically follow what so ever.>"It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before." is DIRECTLY a response to
Right. So misread.>You are free to wait until you have a computer to answer them. This isn't a race.
I have no interest in doing so, since it is irrelevant.
Maybe if you start a thread about that, I'll respond.
Otherwise, it holds no bearing, and I've no interest perusing the rabbit hole further.>Perhaps to the OP, but not to the conversation you and I are having at this moment about your principles.
I have no interest in doing so with someone like you, I'm afraid, Manley.
You've never understood up until this point, either on this thread or elsewhere, so I've no reason to presume you'll actually listen now. But either way, if you want to make a thread for that purpose, do so.
Calling me a hypocrite for something that has no logical resemblance is just not worth engaging.>>1808
No. That would be a nasty assumption on your part.
Wanna know how I know?
Because I've given you the reason it's irrelevant.
You refuse to accept those arguments, instead demanding I answer you anyway > I want the topic of our discussion to be the clarification of your principles and how they relate to rights.
And I, to be quite frank, do not give a single flying fuck whatsoever whatever the hell you want.
It shouldn't come as a surprise, but I don't like you.
So my arguments are going to pertain only to what I disagree with, and the relevant aspects to demonstrate that. Not some random tangent you demand to explore.>If you are unable to clarify your principles, then we can't use them or anyone else's as a measure of what is and isn't "right".
Fine. It was irrelevant to the discussion anyway. I already explained this a good several times here.
Going to be frank with you, man, I've offered plenty of times to actually discuss things with you, before. If you're actually interested in finding out what I think, fine. Finally hit me up on discord. But keep in mind that it'll be a give-and-take. I'm not going to talk to someone who isn't talking, after all. You want answers about me, then I'll have to have answers about you.
Things already got pretty heated, but before things get any more out of hand I feel like I should step in.
Cheeky Bear, explain how building a wall relates to the hypothetical presented in the OP so everyone is on the same page.
I feel like Glamorous Hedgehog is being a hypocrite because he is against asking an extremely hyperbolic and impossible hypothetical about removing men from a society, but is for the actual real-world removing of another group (undocumented immigrants) from the United States.
Glamorous Hedgehog claims that these two things aren't comparable because being undocumented is a crime while being a man isn't. He claimed that it is his "principles" that make him take the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
When I pointed out that at one time in this country, helping slaves escape was also a crime, he rebuked that, now claiming that one is allowed to break the law if rights are being violated.
When I asked him to explain who defines "rights" and what they are, he neglected to do so.
So we are pretty far off from the original point, but my issue was not wanting to make any assumptions about his motivations and principles, which required the answers to those other questions.
Definitely a long path, but you can see all the steps.
So in short, the current question posed in the discussion is who decides what "rights" people have, which is both directly and indirectly relevant to the thread's original topic of wiping out an entire gender if it would significantly improve the lives of the other gender. This is pretty normal for science fiction, actually, with the hyperbolic situations presented in stories having parallels with our modern day situations.>>1809
Glamorous Hedgehog, you're certainly free to step out of the discussion, but the question is presented to you as such: Who defines what "rights" someone has? Without knowing that, it's easy to say that anyone and everyone has a "right" to come to America while no one has "rights" regarding its ownership. That someone is currently claiming rights over America's land doesn't necessarily matter, because people have certainly claimed rights before only for those rights to be revoked and you yourself have agreed that this revocation was in the right. And more directly to the OP, one gender could claim to have more rights than the other and wipe them out without an objective source of "rights".
>>1812>Glamorous Hedgehog claims that these two things aren't comparable because being undocumented is a crime while being a man isn't. He claimed that it is his "principles" that make him take the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
Never said either of those things.
I said that illegally entering in a country is an action. Something you must do, first, as opposed to something you are born with like gender.
I never said consideration should not be leveled for circumstances, and in fact I specifically addressed instances of kids who were taken over the boarder.
I believe the first issue is the primary cause of your misunderstanding of my position
I can't be too understanding, though, as I literally addressed this, specifically, clarifying several times explicitly what I meant.
Which unfortunately leaves me believing you, as I had said, were not reading my posts. Which leads me back to my earlier suggestion that there's not much point going down rabbit holes with you when you don't actually bother to look at what I am saying.
Well in >>1786
You responded to
"without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action." with >Yes, that is accurate. That is because I have principles. It is never okay to steal, for example, regardless of your circumstances.
What other way is there to read this besides >the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
You say that a child brought here against their will deserves consideration, but that any adult who chooses to cross the border illegally does not. This is not me assuming things. You said this. But >>1813
has brought us up to speed on the current topic.
That's fair, I should've worded it better.
What I meant was that basically I'm not inclined to worry about why something was done, as far as desperation goes, as opposed to somebody who literally didn't have any choice, such as a child, or somebody trafficked in such as in the case of sex trafficking, basically.
In any case, as stated, several times at this point, my contention is nothing to do with rights, but specifically to do with unfair judgments based on somebody's born characteristics. I've stated this several times, so I have no interest in discussing rights with you.
If you do wish to discuss this, please contact Drowy (that is who I have them under on discord anyway) as they had offered to mediate prior, and thus have my contact information.
I'm afraid to do to the conversations I've had with you in the past, I'm rather on the inclined to continue a dialogue through text, so my specific requirements for any discussion like that would be that it is over voice. that is because I believe you won't constantly misrepresent, miss here, or just flat-out you ignore what I said if it is verbal.
Like I said, I don't really have interest in following that line, because it was irrelevant to my contention with the topic as he had presented it. It's not the right violation that would make me upset in regards to the genocide angle, even. It's the injustice of it.
That was why I had issue with him claiming I was a hypocrite, and why I have major contention with the bringing up rights, since it does not apply in any capacity to anything I've argued at that point. It did not determine my rationale for saying that it is wrong to judge all men or something that they did not do, but rather, something they are merely born as.
If you wants to discuss rights, he should either make a thread for it, or like I suggested contact me directly.
I do want to ask, though; it was my understanding that Manley had been perma banned. Was that inaccurate?
establishes that you can claim I'm misrepresenting you or lying about what you said when you clearly said something that could be (and often could only be) interpreted the way I describe. It is my opinion that this happens often.
So I'm inclined not to believe you see this happening in other instances when it did not, and I can out and out tell you that it has never been my intention to even misrepresent something you have said intentionally.
has established that my questions about rights and who decides them are inline with the OP's hypothetical. If you don't wish to discuss that, that's your pejorative. But I am not in the wrong for traveling down this train of thought.
That's your prerogative. But it's why I have no interest in treating you with any extra benefits, when it comes to any of our conversations.
you can have your opinion, and I will maintain mine. My experience suggests contrary to what you claim. It's entirely possible that you and I both have a particular blind spot in this regard, however, that does not mean I am obligated to answer anything you demand of me when I feel it is not relevant to the conversation.
Unfortunately, this being an anonymous board, I am liable to slip up, and not realize when it is you I am talking to. So, there may be instances where I give you the consideration I would give for anyone else, that I no longer feel you deserve. I mainly point to sounds but I hope you understand, if I suddenly pull it out from under you, it's because I realized who you were.
I have presented my arguments why you were wrong to push this particular argumentation, and I'm afraid your appeal to authority is irrelevant from my point of view. Hitler was in charge of Germany, that did not make him right, yes?
I'm afraid Zecora was not here for this entire conversation,and evidently missed the several dozen times I've pointed out that it had nothing to do with rights. So I do not give one single flying fuck whether or not you think you were wrong, it's completely irrelevant to me. I believe you were wrong. I will state that as a fact, because I believe it is objectively so. If you want to argue this, go for it, but an appeal to authority is not an argument
by the way, the way you've continued to dodge that particular aspect, even now, is exactly why I do not care what you think, I do not trust you, I think you're incapable of either representing me in an honest manner, or even listening to my points, and why I think you are ultimately only after pushing the conversation around as far as you can go, to dodge the condemnation of your own actions that you've presented prior.
because once again, I have stated so many damn times, it's not about right in the slightest. It's about simple Justice. You don't condemn people for something they didn't do. That's it. It's just flat fairness.
File: 1568437746807.png (104.56 KB, 458x217, 458:217, 1224214.PNG) ImgOps Google
You know, now that I think of it, this is what you've always done from the start. This is how you generally got around any condemnation on your part, any arguments against what you're doing, any self examination of your own principles and ideals.
Thinking about it, this is how you've always turned conversations around. You avoid specifically and directly responding to similar questions you demand of others.
You make claims about them, while refusing to acknowledge any claims about yourself.
You suggest hypocrisy more things never stated, never believed, while dodging any potential critique in that regard of your own true this same deflective method.
I don't know why I never noticed it before. I don't know why on till now I've entertained it. Perhaps it's because I generally try to give people a modicum of consideration, of courtesy, in my conversations. so, when something like that presents itself, I tried to explain exactly what I mean, or what I stand by, even if it's not actually relevant, or if it's simply not accurate to what I said.
I'm going to try to stop doing that.
from now on if you say something I didn't say, I'll just say I didn't say it. If you bring up something that's irrelevant, I will only say it's irrelevant. I won't bother explaining it, or entertaining it, I will engage as though this is an actual debate, rather than a discussion. As though this is somebody trying to use, as I believe it is, a particular tactic to push a narrative, as opposed to actually discuss things
>>1822>if you say something I didn't say, I'll just say I didn't say it.
You mean like in >>1815
where I proved you actually said it?
What rule would I be violating?
What rule requires me to entertain your diversionary tactics?
what I am saying that I am going to start doing is assumed that you were arguing in bad faith, essentially. That's all. Rather than give you the courtesy to explain my position specifically, my rationale, or elaborate, I am simply going to shut down things that are irrelevant, or items that are not reciprocated, in the same way as you would in a proper debate, as opposed to a discussion.
To my knowledge, this is not against the rules in any capacity.
All that I am saying I'm going to do here is treat you as you constantly demonstrate yourself to be.
No, I mean in the other half of it.
If you present something I said mistakenly, I will acknowledge it. I'm not opposed to viewing my flaws.
Let's not pretend that this was the only item of what you claimed I said, and I simply did not.
You've demonstrated a single mistake. You'll have to do more than that if you are going to act like this is the way it is for everything.
If it is, it shouldn't be. Not when people are actually arguing constantly in bad faith, specifically ignoring chunks of your posts repeatedly to push a false narrative of their position.
If I'm entirely honest with you, I think the whole anonymity of it is a bad idea to begin with. Specifically because of people like yourself.
Not everybody engages in good faith. Not everybody acts with consideration for those they're discussing things with. You've directly said you wouldn't bother answering a question I asked of you, so why should I answer questions you ask me question mark why should I entertain your rabbit holes, when you've demonstrated you have no interest in bothering with anything I ask you about?
It's a nonsensical standard. You expect things of others that you never were separate. This was the case for you on the other boards, just the same as it is here. That is why anonymity doesn't really work out that well, at least on here. not if you were wanting to maintain healthy dialogue and discussion, in any case.
If it is my fault, I will demand that you demonstrated. As you did in this case. Otherwise, I will simply persist and telling you that's not what I said, without extrapolating further.
as I've already pointed out, you ignore my extrapolation. Otherwise you wouldn't assume that I was arguing about rights all this time. I literally address that dozens a fucking times in this thread.
And because it didn't benefit your argument, you ignored it. Because you do not want a proper discussion. You want to win. You aren't interested in exploring ideas, you simply want to set others as wrong
Fine, I say. Two can play at that game.
Isn't manly supposed to be perma banned?
I think you must have missed my questioning of that earlier.
I never refused to answer any questions you asked of me. You just didn't really ask me any.
My questions about rights were in line with the OP. You can refuse to answer them, but >>1813
establishes that they were NOT "irrelevant" to the OP.
I'm afraid I do have to respond to this, since he's outright saying something that isn't true.>>1832>>>1807
I had asked you your stance on rights, and he responded with>"We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions"
I am fine with discussing the topic, just not in an argument along these lines, since it does not apply.
If you do want to discuss that particular topic, I recommend, like I said, talking to Drowy, as they have my discord, and so you would be able to contact me directly in that regard. My only requirement would be that we do it over voice, and that it be a give and take situation
I know Drowy. But I really don't see the point in the attempt, since you've already stated you're going to assume I'm arguing in bad faith and you won't give me the same considerations you give other people.
Why would I bother if you've already taken such a hostile attitude before we even begun. And it would be much worse in a private conversation, because it is not against the rules there.
Look, you can do whatever you want. If you suspect a poster is me, then by all means, please, ignore that post and go somewhere else. But what you can't do is assume someone is arguing in bad faith or disregard their arguments because you think it's a particular poster you don't like. That is literally against the rules here, like it or not.
My discord's at Acis#1230
You can hit me up directly if you want, I mostly suggest Drowy as they offered to be a mediator in the past, but, honestly, if you're actually talking
to some one, just about in any situation, things go smoother. Easier to understand and be polite when they're actually saying things to you, directly, as opposed to over text on the internet. >>1837
That's the main reason I'd want to do it directly, over voice.
Because I don't think you would
do what you've done here. Or at least it'd be a lot harder.
I'll give you the consideration if you engage me, directly, over Discord. The problem is, your behavior here is pushing me to a particular standard when it comes to talking to you.> And it would be much worse in a private conversation, because it is not against the rules there.
You could literally leave the call at that point. How would that be worse than a public place that doubles as something of a home for people?>But what you can't do is assume someone is arguing in bad faith or disregard their arguments because you think it's a particular poster you don't like. That is literally against the rules here, like it or not.
Then cite the rule.
I've not seen it.
The closest I got is >1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.
Which, honestly, could be well argued to apply more to your posts than mine, or potential posts belonging to me.
It goes against the rules of civility, progression of topics and is needlessly hostile.
If Bob (Pesky Panda) argues that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter, and you respond with "I think you're Bob, so your argument is invalid" that is NOT discussing the argument on it's own merits.
I disagree. I do not see anything that'd suggest it does.>If Bob (Pesky Panda) argues that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter, and you respond with "I think you're Bob, so your argument is invalid" that is NOT discussing the argument on it's own merits.
Is that what I suggested doing?
No. Of course it isn't.
Though it's a great representation of why
I'll be doing what I actually am. Which is simply, not falling for Bob's bait.
If, for example, Bob decides to push the nonsensical idea that I am a hypocrite because I, say, think that it isn't acceptable to judge people based on gender, but I think that people are responsible for the actions they do, I can simply reply "Those are not the same thing. The first is irrelevant of the second."
No need to do anything extra. No need for further explanation. If you don't get it, too bad.
File: 1568441004597.png (49.56 KB, 218x227, 218:227, 4.png) ImgOps Google
Your appeal to authority doesn't prove anything.
I can say, however, I stated numerous times that my position had absolutely no relation to the rights angle, so claiming I was hypocritical as a result does not logically follow.>Other people could still discuss it. In fact, I'm actually interested to see where this line of question about rights that you seem to dislike so much actually goes with someone willing to discuss it.
What line of question?
You raised it to claim I was a hypocrite.
Or did you forget what you yourself said?>>1779>"And what if someone said "What if you could remove all illegal immigrants from the US?"">>1780>"Illegal immigrant is not a race, gender, or orientation. so once again, I fail to see any relevance of any kind to the given conversation.>"You become an illegal immigrant by doing an action. Namely, entering a country illegally.>"It is in no way shape or form comparable to a race or a gender. Saying so is frankly completely insane.">>1781>"Still, answer the question. Would you be ok with that hypothetical. If you could snap your fingers and remove all illegal immigrants from the country.">>1782>"I am not a fan of removing people from existence in any capacity. Thanos snapping or otherwise.>"I'm somebody that has a bit of a problem with the potential for AI, primarily because of the ethical questions involved with ever turning off an AI.>"I think as a general thumb of rule if you're going to kill anyone you need to have a damn good reason for it. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty, when it comes to extreme cases. Primarily because I don't trust any system enough to be able to justify such an action to the absolute certainty required.>"So what's the relevance of this question?>"Does it have any?">>1783>"Your other post in the other thread suggested you are in favor of a illegal immigrant free United States. So your only issue is the "killing" aspect of the scenario.>"If we re-word the scenario to say that the men are simply relocated. Perhaps to another Earth-like planet with resources where the men could live, would you then stop having a cow?">>1784>"I think that it's quite fair game to say it would be far better if people did not break your country's laws to get in, yes.>"Literally addressed that already>"See >>1780 and maybe start actually fucking reading what I've said, instead of constantly asking irrelevant shit.>"You becoming illegal immigrants by doing something. You do not become a man by doing something. You just are a man. That is simply how you were born.>"Judging people for violating the law, and judging people for what they happened to be born as, are two incredibly different items.>"If you've paid attention to what I've said in this thread, it would have been obvious that the killing angle isn't my major issue here. My biggest problem oh, I would say, is the rather extreme sexism and bigotry.>>1785>"But you write off all illegal immigrants as criminals, without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action. You're judging people based on a decision they may have made out of desperation. But you have no qualms with unilaterally removing them. Many of them didn't even MAKE a choice, and were brought here as infants.>"Not to mention, you might claim it's not about race, but a negligible amount of the US's undocumented immigrants are white people. >"Like it or not, it's a racial topic.>"You've spent all this time arguing over a ridiculous, hyperbolic scenario which could never, ever happen and calling out the "dangerous" outlook of the original OP. Yet you endorse things that can and are happening based on your own outlook on those people. >"I'd say that's pretty hypocritical."
You can also see here exactly what i was getting at, when I said you actively ignored me when I brought up, repeatedly, my position.
I said several times the same thing. There's a difference between doing something, and being born as something.
Zecora can believe whatever he wants. Doesn't make it true. Claiming it does is just an appeal to authority, and doesn't make it reality.
...Except they're the ones who decide whether or not something is or isn't on topic when that is disputed. And he decided that it WAS on topic.
But whatever. You don't want to discuss that topic anyway. I will discuss it with someone who does.
In the capacity that they determine what's allowed? Sure.
But like I said, it's still irrelevant, as I pointed out.
You keep doing you, though. Somehow discuss the "topic" of how it's totally hypocritical to think that judging people for the characteristics they're born with like gender is wrong, but building a wall is fine. I'm sure that'll totally lead to some interesting conversations. /s
Sure, man. That's why I can literally cite the entire fucking conversation, where I repeatedly say over and over "There's a difference between doing something, and being born as something.". This
right here is why I say you're a dishonest guy. This is why I say you are here arguing in bad faith. This
is why I say you're not interested in actual conversation, exploration, dialogue, or anything. You're just after trying to do whatever you can to claim you're right. That's all you've got. It's why you'll demand, repeatedly, over and over again, that others answer your inane, stupid, backwards questioning, while refusing to ever respond in kind to any questions asked of you.
This repeated refusal to ever actually engage with people, not just jam words in their mouth and dance around like you've somehow done something clever, all the while ignoring anything anyone actually raises up.
You want to act like it's somehow unjust, like I'm somehow treating you poorly, when you repeatedly pull shit like this. You say I've taken a "hostile attitude before we even begun", when you start off with this shit.
Going to be honest with you; I think this is why you never wanted to talk outside of Ponychan.
I think this is why, despite my constant offerings, especially during your little political ban, you always squirmed away from it. Because you'd not have any real way to accept such an offer, and yet still claim I'm
the one who's supposedly holding things up. I'm
somehow the one who's never let productive conversation happen.
It just wouldn't work out to answer someone's call for private dialogue where concerns of reputation and appearance no longer matter. After all, if you did that, you might actually have to start treating them like they're human.
No, the reason I don't want to talk to you outside of the site is because You've done nothing but show stubborn adherence to what you already believe and have never shown me any interested in listening to my side. I think that you won't listen and it would be a waste of time.
Not to mention, I think a lot of your views are abhorrent and I believe have genuine reasons to be afraid
File: 1589382848851.png (509.93 KB, 1800x1500, 6:5, 1585888267365.png) ImgOps Google
This seems like a really interesting point of conversation, considering its talking about a cleansing and the like while I imagine other types of clensings are not allowed.
To add something constructive to your arguement, women are not equal to men in any fashion and the allowances they have made politically towards the enemies of society is grevious, however the reality is man and woman have co-evolved and you cannot simply stick the male to another male ended cable and expect a good connection. Here are the facts, male sex drive and female sexual choice are the drivers of evolution. All secondary sex characteristics are stemming from that conflict of interest. As such, if you where to remove men's target of affection from play and point them towards men, what would result would be an over active sex drive designed to ignite a cold female one instead igniting one of the same gender to be even hoter. This is the origin along with the inherent unhealthy nature of anal penetration of why homosexuality is degenerate. It's absolutely bad for you and society because it conditions the practitioners to engage in hypersexual behavior on a near constant basis. Men who are already prone to addiction, become real nyphos when homosexuality is on the table.
It would be far better to simply cut back entirely on womens rights as a whole than to remove women from the biological equation without taking a long look at male behavior patterns. As abhorant as I have come to see feminism, it's obvious that male pattern is NOT default. The two sexes are locked in a motivation cycle that is not self sustaining in a homosexual relationship, and without removing elements from that evolutionary tug of war is like removing the back wheels of a car because they aren't powered and asking if the more useful powered front wheels can still drive the car.
File: 1589383218225.png (333.82 KB, 1128x1500, 94:125, Fausticorn looks foward to….png) ImgOps Google
Over all I find the general remarks on ethnic cleansing by the rules to be pretty subjectively enforced here, and the real hilarious thing is it definately as it stands is a blanket ban on evolution itself. We are suggesting by such a rule that humanity must remain frozen in time, that genes inherent in one race or other demographic group cannot be ever considered harmful and in need of changeing. Religious believes from not eating cattle to sucking blood from infants must be born in blind equality. If the goal of this board is to discuss matters that affect society and how to improve the lot of humanity in one fashin or another, it is nothing more than a blanket ban on the facts of the situation as science has provided us. Is it time to give up on facts mods? Or maybe we're only allowed to ethnically cleanse """certain""" groups, like say women.
I am aware feminism is contentious. You seem to feel males lack self-control and require females to moderate their sexual impulses.>>4926>genes inherent in one race or other demographic group cannot be ever considered harmful
That's contentious as well. Certainly some genes are associated with races, predisposition to some cancers, diseases, or resistance to diseases exist in racial populations, for example. Are there genes so consequential that political decisions are necessary?
The original thread of this premise had the premise reversed, asking if a society of all women would be a better one. That thread went over so poorly, particularly with a handful of specific users, that it had to be locked down. This thread was created in response, and I think in a sarcastic light.
But the original point was lost because the original thread with the opposite proposal sited the fact that the majority of crimes and murders are committed by men, and that a society with no men would have virtually no crime or violence as a result.
File: 1589861258793.jpg (575.91 KB, 1476x2202, 246:367, 00e60fcdebe761df695198f71e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
This sounds like a copy pasta of a thread that caused an explosion of drama on /canterlot/
File: 1589861760137.jpg (373.63 KB, 762x900, 127:150, 800a81004a8a970c7f20f8408b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
lol, it's just a necroed thread