thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Seems we mostly disagree on whether to deploy the word "evil" for pretty quotidian human cognitive biases
...
Far more harm is done in the world by those who are mistaken, or haven't thought things through, or who want a little too badly to feel important, than by malice.
Hmmm...I think I still failed to communicate. I think it is evil to believe "The ends justify the means." and actively disregard moral responsibilities to those affected by your actions in pursuit of a goal. I don't think it should be necessarily considered to be malice however, as any harm caused is usually a side effect rather than the ultimate goal. This is how I perceive most feminists' activism in the context of DV. I take it you disagree with at least one of these characterizations?
Plus, it's easier to convince a man that he is wrong than that he is evil.
N=1, but I'd be a lot healthier if I found it easier to be convinced I am wrong than that I am evil.
I am not willing to extend that description to every single feminist who suspects that domestic abuse is rampant and primarily male-on-female, and who therefore resists efforts to change family law in men's favor.
Given the history of domestic violence research (see particularly the section on the harassment of researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry), I do not consider such ignorance to be a very good defense.
My personal understanding of the matter is that this body of evidence and theory is hopelessly biased by the Women Are Wonderful effect, plus all the other cognitive biases that lead us to assign infinite agency to men and none to women
I think it is less biases of agency that are the problem in this case and more biases in the acceptance of harm.
that sufficiently advanced wrongness is indistinguishable from malice. Willful evil, if you will.
I don't think all or possibly even most willfully evil behavior is based in malice. Gross negligence is I think an example of such, and one I think better describes my characterization of feminists in this case. They mostly don't necessarily want to hurt men, they just don't care if men get hurt.
I think a fairer characterization is "stupid and wrong." That seems like the appropriate level of charity to me.
I think that characterization is horribly infantilizing of feminists and is far less charitable than recognizing that they are being willfully evil for two primary reasons. First, doing so is in my mind just another way society doesn't take women seriously. Regardless of my disagreements with them, I don't believe they are stupid. I'd expect the average intelligence of feminists to be above the population average, as it is largely a movement of the well-educated.
Second, I think that this puts "evil" behavior on too high a pedestal, which I don't think is wise. Willfully evil behavior is normal human behavior, not something restricted to evil people. Importantly, how can I expect to recognize and not shy away from acknowledging when I'm being willfully evil to others if I close my eyes to the much easier-to-recognize case of others being willfully evil toward (people like) me? This is perhaps a bastardization of the Catholic teachings I was raised with and turned away from, but I think this ties directly in to the plea in the Lord's prayer to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"--there can be no forgiveness without acknowledgement.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
You obviously have experienced a very different set of US restrooms than I have. I have regularly observed women using the men's room in the US and was mildly reprimanded as a child for complaining about feeling uncomfortable because of it.
Feminists believe that the ordinary, non-abusive men you speak of are just sneaky abusers making big sad eyes at the judge and denying their crimes. I believe feminists wrong about this, and that they are doing considerable damage by being stupid and wrong. But they are not as willfully evil as you're portraying them.
This is not simply being stupid and wrong. This is not simply being stupid and wrong. Large prominent feminist organizations actively, willfully supporting and celebrating female abusers while completely erasing male victims if not making them out to be the abusers. They seem to justify any violence by women towards men as self-defense and any violence by men towards women as abusive. If you don't see that as willfully evil, I'm not sure what you would see as such.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
It is completely relevant since "disparate impact" considers discrimination in that sense discrimination in the sense you are referring to.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Day 2 two planes collided in Haneda, the airport closest to Narita in Tokyo. Everyone was evacuated and survived, though the videos are harrowing. The commercial craft collided with a Coast Guard craft that, from what I understand, was on its way to assist the previously mentioned earthquake.
Everyone on the commercial craft survived. Five of the six crew on the Coast Guard craft died.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
See just about any instance of "sexualization". For some specific examples, see Julia Serano's Why Nice Guys Finish Last and my response at /r/theschism.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
Why are some young women apparently trying taboo a 22 year old women dating a 28 year old man when they are also disproportionaly hooking up with older men on the dating apps?
...because the threat of social ruin gives them power over the older men they are hooking up with?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
No, the stranger part is the biggest reason it's not appealing to me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
Having sex in a nightclub bathroom with an attractive stranger is the highlight of your life;
I realize I'm a bit of an outlier when it comes to sex, but does this really appeal to many straight men? That sounds more like a nightmare to me and I didn't think I was that much of an outlier.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
My cats are about 50/50 with looking at my finger or what I'm pointing at, which isn't that much worse than my dog, so I'm not sure that's completely true.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men.
That's just women arranging for the older men to control young men on women's behalf. Women are still ultimately responsible for it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
I don't see how this follows. If the thing is bad we should want to have less of the thing, even if the improvement we make is not necessarily equally distributed among all impacted groups.
Sure, but I'm not going to waste my time and effort supporting improvements that are only seen by other people--especially people who have related privileges relative to me--unless they demonstrate a willingness to do the same for me. As I said before, people supporting gender equality now have a very high bar to meet in that regard, as they have a very strong history of saying they'll support men too to get my support and then never following through.
I do not think one injustice justifies another. We can, and should, get rid of both.
Empty words. Those pushing for gender equality have proven time and again that they only care about equality when women get the short end of the stick. You need to prove that you will actually get rid of both here rather than stopping once you get the benefits (EDIT:) if you want to convince me to support you.
I don't understand this sentence. No amount of women "show[ing] off" justifies sexual assault or harassment.
The problem is that behavior by men towards women that is perceived as sexual assault or harassment isn't perceived as such when done by women toward men. Men have to "justify" behaviors that women get to just do with no consequence. Women showing off therefore either needs to be more restricted than men doing so or women need to put up with all the behaviors from men that men have to put up with from women.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
The policy is broader than "don't flash your breasts." According to your link it prohibited any content that "deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region." I have no trouble believing that women were modded for content that men got away with. If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man. I think there is a pretty straightforward sexist implication to "men are allowed to do this thing but women aren't."
When women start getting treated equivalently to men for sexual assault/harassment, THEN AND ONLY THEN will women deserve "equality" in this regard. You don't get to simultaneously claim the same ability to show off while holding extensive privileges in controlling how people respond to your doing so.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
Congratulations! Your ring-bearer looks very confused by the situation, though very adorable.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
I think some people use the 'one drop rule' for determining whether or not a forum is a white nationalist forum.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
But the kid would likely be better off were they to go to a well-regarded private school. We calculate child support based on what the parent can afford, not based merely on what is necessary for the kid to be "fine", because the child is entitled to parental support. Why shouldn't we similarly require parents with the necessary means to not skimp out on their child's education?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
“Just following orders” is not generally accepted as an excuse. Without it, I don’t see how this would absolve anyone.
Sure it is--eg, look at how women are treated by the justice system: that they had a male partner/pimp is often used to excuse their misbehavior. "Just following orders" is only not accepted as an excuse when we are predisposed to lack sympathy for the people given the orders.
I'd say it was usually alienating feedback rather than negative feedback. Feedback that made me feel like I didn't belong. A lot of times it wasn't intentionally negative, but just the fact that I had different opinions/views than the rest of my family would lead to such withdrawal because expressing them would require confronting that feeling of not really fitting in.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
"Kids typically resort to the silent treatment when they feel like their words don't matter, and they have no other way of pushing back."
I feel like the first half of this was more true for me. I didn't really see my behavior as pushing back though, but rather pure avoidance--responding seemingly always made things worse, so I just stopped responding because that was apparently the least bad option.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
This might be a particularly feminine social weapon, I admit.
Girls do seem more prone to it than boys. Eg, https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/girls
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
Consider two groups. Group 1 consists of convicted child molesters who report attraction to kids. Group 2 consists of people who aren't known to have had any sexual contact with kids and report attraction to kids. If an academic studies Group 2 and uses the technically correct term pedophile, people--particularly non-technical people--will assume they are referring to Group 1 because the term has lost its nuance and studies based on Group 1 are far more common for various reasons. Thus minor attracted person was coined to convey that lost nuance. By "pulled out of someone's butt with zero basis in reality", are you asserting that such confusion does not exist with the term pedophile, that such nuance is unnecessary, or something else?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
Tolkien didn't invent a new sort of hero, he was instantiating a very old (and very Catholic) sort of hero that 'most people today outside of the trad-right are simply unfamiliar with because modern culture is overwhelmingly secular and liberal.
...
I think a hero who accepts their mission specifically because it was handed down from God is of a very different nature, this is someone who believes there is an absolute authority that can and will be answered to. The moderns protagonists don't believe that, which is part of why they're so uncertain about their mission and nervous about accepting.
Again, an excellent point.
I'm disappointed Hlynka. You started out on the right path, but flubbed the ending. Tolkien's heroes are Catholic heroes not just because "Your will Lord, not mine, be done." I think the more important part distinguishing Tolkien's protagonists (and the opposite for his antagonists) is the emphasis on acting virtuously and avoiding sin even in the presence of great temptation--the ends do not justify the means and the world can never be saved through sin. Do not chase great deeds, but act appropriately when circumstances make them necessary. This is very different than what Greer and @Soriek are describing.
People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing. The fact that no children were harmed (EDIT:) in this case doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some creep is actually finding some enjoyment in life.
More options
Context Copy link