Unpopular opinion: parts of third-wave feminism directly led to the rise of trans ideology

submitted by Aureus from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]america_first_1776 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Boys have had rough and tumble play for almost all of human history. Violent crime is at an all time low since we turned that down. I think evidence is against rough and tumble play.

You're confusing a possible cause with an actual cause. The reason violent crime has come down for the past ~1000 years (dating back to Europe) is through eugenics. Men who were considered "higher-status" in Europe became more likely to have kids, all while Europe cleansed itself of the people who were most likely to commit violent crime. You add onto the fact that now a days, it is much harder to get away with a crime due to advances in forensic science and modern monitoring technology..

I'm personally of the opinion that most girls were beaten into silence and passivity from a young age. I was just as bored as the boys in class, but I didn't act out because my parents taught me better; with words, rulers, and the back of their hands when they needed a little more oomph.

Except, once again, your personal experience does not match with reality. Boys are more likely to get paddled than girls by a wide margin.

But maybe that's what modern society needs: people who can sit quietly and solve problems. Keep up or get left behind, right?

Who are you to tell us that's what modern society needs? There is such a thing as being active and solving problems at the same time. Modern society was built by men because men are more active and innovative than women. Pretty much every piece of modern technology you use was built by a white man.

Hey, if you got a better solution, like I said, I'm all ears. I don't even like dealing with men, but if they're going to negatively affect me, I'm going to have to do something about it. And if you don't like my methods, then you should come up with your own. I'm not going to sit around and put up with crazy, entitled male behavior while you brainstorm. Let's be proactive, right?

A balkanization of the United States based on both race and political affiliation. It's become clear that the differences between our sides is irreconcilable. Let's see what race/philosophy comes out on top

[–]FediNetizen 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

A balkanization of the United States based on both race and political affiliation. It's become clear that the differences between our sides is irreconcilable.

It's only a small minority of people that finds being around people of different races and political ideologies so stressful that they feel the need to do something about it. America has been a cultural melting pot for 100 years now, and at the same time one of the most successful countries. Don't assume the rest of the country shares your fragility.

[–]Aureus[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't assume the rest of the country shares your fragility.

This already seems to be happening on both sides. Progressives will eagerly tell you that the "cultural melting pot" is a "racist" concept. We're beginning to see a sort of neo-apartheid where black businesses are distinctly marked and offered discounts from firms such as Uber, and in universities black people are offered separate dorms and graduations by their own choice.

I agree with you that a balkanization likely will not happen - there's too much money in staying united. But that's doesn't mean that groups like The New Black Panthers won't call for it.

[–]america_first_1776 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It's only a small minority of people that finds being around people of different races and political ideologies so stressful that they feel the need to do something about it.

No it isn't. If it was, then the science wouldn't show that pretty much all "diverse" communities don't work

America has been a cultural melting pot for 100 years now, and at the same time one of the most successful countries.

That "success" from the "cultural melting pot" came because up until the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, the people who immigrated here were white.

Don't assume the rest of the country shares your fragility.

Ohhhhh. So I didn't even read the username till I saw this "debate tactic." How's it going Fagnetizen? Long time no see?

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This isn't "what the science says", this is an essay written by a guy that quotes news articles and studies he's selected to make the argument that diversity is a bad thing. The studies themselves often don't support the broad sweeping statements he makes here, though, and in some cases even contradicts them.

For instance, he takes a computer simulation and uses that to make the argument that diversity is incompatible with strong communities. He also selectively pulls quotes from studies that don't overall agree with what he's claiming. For instance, he took a paper that argues that there are short-term disadvantages but long-term advantages to diverse communities, and only pulled quotes from the sections on short-term disadvantages while neglecting to cover the advantages. This is pretty hilarious, because an article from 13 years ago predicted people like him would do just that:

"Putnam’s results will play handily to those conservatives who believe that self-segregation works with, rather than against, “the grain of human nature.” We hear this kind of argument in apologetics for “a conservatism comfortable with materialist self-interest.” These same conservatives will likely pass over in silence those sections of the article that review the many benefits of increased immigration and diversity, among them: greater creativity; better, faster problem-solving; and more rapid economic growth, among others. Putnam never argues that diversity is, on balance, a bad thing."

Pretending that this anon's essay is "what the science says" may be comforting to a racist living in a world where most people don't like racists, but at the end of the day it's mainly a list of cherry-picked quotes.

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Show me the science in favor of diverse communities. Show me that they are more efficient, have more community trust, and more community involvement. Show me the studies that show diverse communities have less crime than homogeneous white communities.

the many benefits of increased immigration and diversity, among them: greater creativity; better, faster problem-solving; and more rapid economic growth, among others.

Basically, "muh GPD." So your community is rat-infested, filled with gang-bangers, and blacks are coming to your house to steal what dey deserve n sheit. But we get more "creativity" (other studies in the article I posted went over innovation, so I'm not sure what kind of "creativity" he's talking about... it could mean anything), "better problem solving" (again, could mean anything), and "more rapid economic growth" (I'll give you the "muh gdp" even though my article contradicts this). Wow, that sounds like heaven.

And the fact that this meta-analysis didn't bring up the very few positives of diversity doesn't make anything stated in the meta-analysis less true whether you like it or not. In fact, showing that even the most leftist authors can't ignore the downsides of diversity only strengthens the argument.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And the fact that this meta-analysis didn't bring up the very few positives of diversity doesn't make anything stated in the meta-analysis less true whether you like it or not.

But it does make any conclusions you would draw from this less correct. The goal of any real scientific endeavor is objective truth. A real meta-analysis, or meta-study, is useful because it takes all available evidence (or a slice that is as representative as possible when the sheer volume of work becomes an unreasonably large undertaking) and steps back to try to find the consensus. Again, all of this is in search of objective truth.

But that isn't what your friend is doing. He's just picking quotes from works where those pieces in isolation seem to support his agenda.

Speaking of agenda, you're making this much easier by being honest about yours

"So your community is rat-infested, filled with gang-bangers, and blacks are coming to your house to steal what dey deserve n sheit. But we get more "creativity""

Time and time again when arguing with white nationalists the open contempt for minorities eventually comes out.

[–]america_first_1776 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Dude, the entire narrative driven by practically ALL cultural, educational, and government institutions already points out the "value" of diversity. You literally have the entire narrative on your side already. Having to rehash what was already said and what is already being said by every talking head serves no purpose other than restating arguments people already have heard. For example, I've already seen "studies" showing the effects of immigration on GDP. Most people who are interested in learning more already have seen such studies. But what if our enemies, like you and the entirety of our institutions constantly blabbered on about how there are only positive effects from diversity? Well, we would need a quick and true rebuttal of that statement, especially if it pertains to certain outcomes of diversity that we care about most (like having a nice, stable, crime-free community). I've said this before to you and I'll say it again... we are FORCED to deal with your narrative. There is no escaping it. We've already heard what you have to say because it is shoved in our faces from the time we are in Kindergarten all throughout college. It's shoved in our faces on all social media sites. It's shoved in our faces on every television program (just look at the last Superbowl for God's sake). It's YOU who have never had to deal with a conflicting opinion from our side your entire life because you have the entire establishment on your side.

Time and time again when arguing with white nationalists the open contempt for minorities eventually comes out.

Whether I have "contempt" or not doesn't make anything I say less true. I don't have contempt. I understand different communities have different needs and desires. That's why I'm both compassionate and analytical enough to see the ~value~ need for balkanization.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That's why I'm both compassionate and analytical enough to see the ~value~ need for balkanization.

Just move somewhere racist and dominated by white people if you want to live with white people that agree with you. Those places still exist you know. There's nothing compassionate, or practical, about uprooting whole swaths of the country to fix a problem most people don't have. This is not a national problem, this is a you problem.

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I actually don't know if you're from America or not, so I'll actually give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't. However, doing what you want me to do in the U.S. will not work, at least long-term, for a few reasons. First, is because there are laws prohibiting you from creating a community that is mono-racial. There are federal laws that will force whites to admit browns and blacks into their schools, businesses, and pretty much everywhere but places of worship. Second, you have mass demographic shifts that are coming from third-world migration that these smaller homogeneous white communities have no control over. Immigration restriction comes from the Federal Executive Branch and states have little, to know, say on who comes into their states based on the 14th Amendment. As you can plainly see by any electoral map, the browns and blacks eventually take over cities and suburbs that were historically white because their populations are growing and they can never create communities themselves that can sustain their populations. Third, the Obama-era Democrats enacted HUD policies for "low-income housing" (cuck-speak for black/brown housing) that specifically targeted safe-white areas.

This kind of goes into your second point too. Any sort of white flight you are suggesting has been tried by more than just me. It's failed because of policies that are specifically enacted to discourage white homogeneity and well-being.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're not going to get everything you want, because America as a whole has moved beyond racism. But nothing is stopping a group of like-minded racists from choosing to all live in the same area and only voluntarily associate with other white people.