The New York Times Guild Once Again Demands Censorship of Colleagues
7 days ago by ScientologistFurry to /s/news from theintercept.com
Vaush completely changes his view on woman's rape story when he finds out the race of the perpetrator by dmitrykaramasov in videos
[–]ScientologistFurry 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Are you sure? The original statement to which I responded was “men hate women.” As in, all men hate all women. That’s literally what I was responding to. I pointed out several examples of systemic bias in favor of women which would not exist if the leadership of society, which includes many men, hated them.
You replied, “arseholes hate other people. It happens.” You revised the original issue “do all men hate all women” to “sometimes some people hate other people” which had virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand. So if anyone is guilty of moving the goalposts, it’s you.
Also, please explain how my statements aren’t proof against the original assertion, as it was made.
Or, continue to drop stupid one liners and I’ll let you have the last word rather than continue to waste time on a troll.
Funny, in my entire life I have neither met nor even heard of a single example of that in the West. I’ve never heard the phrase “I hate women.” Not in person, not on social media, not in academic courses. Never.
Even if there was some evidence of that, the statement was “men hate women.” As in, all of them. All men. Hate all women. That is an insane statement.
I support the right to free speech, even on behalf of second wave lunatics still bandying about last season’s flavor of Leftist persecution complex and hysteria who are only here because they now find themselves alongside whites, men, straight people, and conservatives out of fashion with the whims of the mob. In a perfect world it would be great if she could have realized that theres a common thread through the abuse by corporate censorship, abuse by the trans community, and their own patently irrational beliefs called identity politics. But since that seems off the table the next best thing is show their ideas to the rest of the community for what they are.
[–]ScientologistFurry 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Are you insane? In the West, outside of impossible corner cases like psychopathic serial killers, there is literally no evidence - whatsoever - that anyone of any consequence, anywhere, hates women.
This is the civilization that conditioned the vote on military service, but then gave it to women just because they complained.
This is the civilization that for centuries lived by the “women and children first” credo in situations like the Titanic.
This is the civilization that gives women the following choices in the event of an unwanted pregnancy: unilaterally kill the child, give the child to someone else and walk away consequence-free, or identify any man you want on the birth certificate and after a summary hearing, collect 1/3 of his income for “child support” that you have no obligation whatsoever to spend on the child. In the same situation, our patriarchy has given men one choice: shut up and pay or go to prison. Oh, and if a man experiences financial loss and can’t pay, that’s often not a defense. Neither is being the victim of rape by the mother as a child.
This is the civilization that has conjured a rape “epidemic” out of ridiculous studies that would not pass a Freshman research methods class to conclude with a straight face that Western college campuses are more dangerous for women than Third World nations with dysfunctional rule of law. In the name of this issue, the Obama DOE at Biden’s behest (both men for those of you keeping score) required colleges and universities to institute a parallel quasi criminal justice system with essentially no due process rights for accused male students, administered by employees “trained” by feminist academics and consultants. And all this was done to protect the right of students to equal access to education on the basis of sex.
This is the civilization that required Harvard and VMI to go co-ed, but not Wellesley or Smith.
This is the civilization that doles out tax breaks and government contracts to business that are owned by women, but also requires all citizens to be given the equal protection of the laws.
This is the civilization that requires men to register for military conscription with dire punishment if they don’t, but allows women the “choice” to enlist or not as they might prefer.
This is the civilization that sentences men to prison time that is an order of magnitude longer for the same offense for which a woman is sentence under the same circumstances. Incidentally, this disparity is far more stark than the black/white sentencing disparity that has convinced most of society that the criminal justice system is racist.
This is the civilization in which men constitute the overwhelming majority of homeless, prison inmates, workplace fatalities, and victims of violent crime including homicide.
This is the civilization that shovels the equivalent of a wealthy country’s GDP into the coffers of feminist organizations that do nothing except spread specious complaints about “sexism” and generate misleading studies used to gain political and economic advantage for women.
I could go on, but instead I’d love to hear a logical explanation of how the patriarchal overlords of the West, who evidently hate women, decided to do these things consistently with their misogynistic impulses. And please no tortured, grasping “deconstruction” imported from your gender studies syllabus revolving around selective subjective interpretation of free goodies as “benevolent sexism” or somehow consistent in your own mind with stereotypical sex roles.
Explain to me why personal experiences don't matter in an argument. by SNCA_Furweeb in whatever
[–]ScientologistFurry 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 months ago (0 children)
Because generally anecdotes aren’t sufficient evidence to draw society-wide conclusions from. For example in the United States there are more than 300,000,000 people. In a population that large there are bound to be many individual experiences that don’t extend to the whole.
Consider it this way. Each year a handful of people are struck by lightning. If you asked them what some of the most pressing dangers in the US are based on their personal “lived experience,” you’d likely get an answer that isn’t representative of the population at large.
If you asked someone to answer you, based on their individual experience and perception, whether the Earth was flat or round, you’d likely get a wrong answer.
If you elevate claims of individuals based on their experiences to the level of every other form of evidence or argument like statistics and investigation, you’d end up equating poltergeist hauntings, angelic visitations, and alien abductions to the same level of social importance as auto fatalities, heart attacks, and violent crime.
Social policy and arguments about social policy aren’t meant to be directly responsive to individual experiences in isolation. Society doesn’t have the resources to do that in every case, nor does everyone in society even share the experiences of a given individual such that responding to their experience would even be helpful.
If someone’s own subjective experience is the sum total of their evidence for something, it’s perfectly fair to say they haven’t proved their case. Failing all else, if individual experience is evidence, then anyone else’s contrary individual experience offsets anyone else’s and then no one ever proves anything.
William Barr's Remarks on China Policy at Gerald R. Ford Museum
2 months ago by ScientologistFurry to /s/politics from youtube.com
Both left-wing and right-wing news sources demoralize conservatives and regular people. by Aureus in politics
[–]ScientologistFurry 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
I think you’re right. What would be more effective are examples of the Right pushing back successfully against censorship, such as the Goya sellout following the Twitter boycott attempt.
That is a more effective rallying cry showing that pushback CAN work, and which forms have been effective as models.
The Dehumanizing Condescension of 'White Fragility' by SierraKiloBravo in books
[–]ScientologistFurry 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
It is moments of sanity like this appearing in prestigious publications that give me hope that our entire culture has not been lost to this superstitious madness
Woke Washington Redskins Officially Drop Team Name, Logo by scrubking in politics
[–]ScientologistFurry 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
They should change their name to the Washington Malcontents to underscore the reasons for the change
The Ideological Corruption of Science
3 months ago by ScientologistFurry to /s/whatever from wsj.com
Reddit Still Hates Women by rattyreaper in Introductions
I have indeed heard the “divorce rape” canard and do not endorse it. Not that this is really here or there, but I’ll add that that term is pretty clearly the result of the MRA crowd crudely imitating the successful tactics of feminism in use of hysterical exaggeration.
Anyways I had a point earlier on I wanted to make about how the preceding generation of Leftists is unhappy that their own tactics have been co-opted, dialed up, and used against them by the “trans” community, but we seem to have gone in a different direction and that’s fine. If people come away from this discussion less inclined to misuse language in service of wild exaggeration that is good enough for me.
Thank you for listening.
[–]ScientologistFurry 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
For efficiency's sake I'm going to try to respond to u/ccccccc and u/cybitch together as the points I want to address largely overlap between their comments.
First, I want to say right off the bat that I can't comment on disparities between the reaction to male-oriented subs and feminist-oriented subs on Reddit as regards "trans" issues. By the time that stuff came up I'd more or less checked out of Reddit out of disgust. You both could very well be right about that, and it's a significant data point that has merit. I just threw in the towel on trying to make sense out of those issues, much less speak sense to them, long before. So I can't speak to that, but don't let that come off as me trying to take the cheap way out and say those points don't count - they do.
But more to the point, even assuming those disparities exist, it sounds like we all agree that Reddit doesn't actually hate women. u/cybitch said, I think correctly, that Reddit's motivator is advertiser dollars, not hatred. So with us all pretty much agreed on that, I want to emphasize a simmering latent concern I've had for a long time that relates to this issue. There's been a gradual distortion and flattening of language and argument through hyperbole over the last generation or two, and it's come to interfere with the ability to have a rational conversation about charged political issues. You probably know some of the examples I'm talking about. Speech is violence. Viewpoints are violence. Now apparently silence is violence. Criticism is "harassment." Boorish jokes are rape, or "rape-adjacent." Statues are "white supremacy." Conservative viewpoints are "racism." An enormous amount of things are "racism." Disagreement is "hate."
First of all, these positions are just demonstrably wrong on their face according to any sensible understanding of these words. It undermines someone's credibility to just be so clearly wrong about things like this.
But more importantly, letting this subtle shift in the meaning of the words slip by unchallenged is having a disastrous effect on political discourse. It enables the use of fantastically disproportionate responses reserved for actions that are actually are violent, hateful, racist, etc. against attitudes, speech, and beliefs that come nowhere near what those words meant before hysteria poisoned our discourse. The suppresses our ability to talk to one another honestly or really even intelligibly, and without being able to do that, we can't come to any kind of agreement or resolution of any divisive issue. It immediately escalates discussions between people who disagree to accusations and counter-accusations rather than actually examining facts.
Moreover, this overdosing on hyperbole dilutes the meaning of the terms we use when they should apply. Going the way of Boy Who Cried Wolf, it's hard to get people to take allegations of racism, hatred, harassment, misogyny, etc. seriously when those terms have grown to include so many wildly disparate and innocuous thoughts and good faith speech.
So, for these reasons, I ask everyone, please - say what you mean and mean what you say. Ramping up hyperbole makes it less likely you're going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. If you're put off by the tactics of the "trans" community in wielding labels like "transphobe," "bigot," and "hate" like weapons, be the change you want to see in the world and set a better example yourself.
[–]ScientologistFurry 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
Apart from the details of your respective specific political beliefs, what do you consider to be the important differences between you and these trans activists you dislike so much?
Obviously you and they probably differ pretty significantly over whether a “trans” woman is indeed a woman and whether everyone should be compelled to use preferred pronouns, whether trans people should be allowed to use restrooms associated with their claimed identity, etc. But I notice your post had the title “Reddit still hates women.” And I couldn’t help but notice the striking similarity between that type of rhetoric and that of trans activism, where beliefs and actions they dislike are reduced to some emotional smear like “hatred.”
And so I have to ask. Do you believe that Reddit literally hates women? If so, how do you reconcile that with reams of evidence of feminism being given preferential treatment on Reddit? There are many data points to support this, such as Double X being made a default sub, the admins embracing egregious double standards in their treatment of GamerGate and related subs that showed pronounced favoritism towards feminist perspectives, quarantining TheRedPill as “shocking or offensive” but allowing FemaleDatingStrategy to operate normally, and so on.
On the other hand, if you don’t believe Reddit literally hates women, why did you say that it did? Can you see the similarities with trans rhetoric that involve hot button personal smears against political opponents?