A Voice For Men: Hate Speech?

[–]nicemod[M] 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]only_does_reposts 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nicemod 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saint2e 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As I said, this 'shift in feminism' is not a shift in feminism per se, but a shift in your beliefs. In short, you used to be an odious, sexist hatemonger. You're less of one today. That's a good thing. But Feminism was NEVER 'about equality'. Feminism preys on the female imperative, and the male desire to protect / show value (in order to earn sex, usually), to further a Femisupremacist ideology. You bought into it fully at one time, you buy into less of it now.

This is not a judgement of you or your worth as a person, it is simply a stark statement of fact. To assume Feminism changed is to work to excuse yourself, and deny your bias. That is not constructive.

Better to confront the reality (take the Red Pill) and learn to improve / atone / whatever the Hell suits your agenda, than try and fob off your beliefs on outside forces. 'The World' didn't make you think those things, you already did, to some degree, and Feminism capitalized on it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Whelp... I want to say was more of a thoughtful response then I was expecting and I ought to give you the courtesy of a reply before the alcohol kicks in .. more. (Just got off work have early morning shifts. Sleeping in afternoon issue.) Anyhow while I can't deny what you say (for which I will explain.) I can't help feeling like you are looking down your nose at me when you say rather smugly "it is simply a stark statement of fact." without actually knowing the story.

I grew up with a father who was a Wesleyan Minister turned conservative politician. You can imagine the bias I was reared under. Anyhow in 1995 I met a woman. She was a professor at a local liberal arts university. She taught intro to Sociology and still only had a major but her mentor at the university was trying to fund her PHD. She was what they call in Sociological terms an "Social-constructionist-ethno-methodologist" .. or in normal English a radical feminist. I went to university and took Soc. (Needless to say I got an A in her class, heh.) I have to admit I did learn an awful lot from her. I lived with her and she was 10 years older .. me 25 her 35. Lots of drinking.

When we broke up I spent years trying to learn that what she taught me was wrong. I had difficulty finding good information from conservative "intellectuals”.. but I happened to find a political alternative in Libertarianism.. After holding to this political bias for sometime I had an epiphany of sorts that really softened my political bias to a more center based thinking/philosophy. Anyhow I don’t appreciate far right or left anymore. Truth be known .. I might have done far greater damage with my appreciation of Libertarianism then feminism.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I aim to be confrontational and unforgiving for a reason: it puts things in stark contrast, and refuses the person the refuge of delusion. There are many who choose a moral relativistic outlook to assuage the guilt from immoral actions. This same mechanism is the primary draw to both Feminism and Liberalism, so yeah, you kinda went from the frying pan to the fire there.

I am rarely judgemental of a person's actions unless they acted out of intent, and was not intentionally so in this case precisely because you were subtly indoctrinated into this kind of thinking.

But to the Jew getting shot, the reason for the SS officer shooting him joining up is totally irrelevant, and does not excuse that officer in the slightest. I'll pre-emptively defend the inevitable Godwin comment (from someone, if not you) and state that overly-obvious metaphors are now mandatory in this under-educated society, and suck it up Princess...

Point is, in both cases you succumbed to Totalitarian movements that dress their hate up in ambiguously nice sounding phrases...literally, Doublespeak. But it was not entirely unwillingly.

It is to draw your attention to your propensity to allow others to control you that I comment.

[–]giegerwasright 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]avantvernacular 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

In Vladek Filler's initial rape trial, the prosecutor (who was afterward found to have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and conduct unworthy of a lawyer) withheld two key pieces of exculpatory evidence, even when ordered by a judge to hand them over to the defence, and successfully argued to keep other exculpatory evidence from being presented.

THEN she advised the jury during her closing arguments that the absence of exculpatory evidence (all of which she'd prevented the jury from seeing) should be taken as evidence of guilt.

Given the different rules of admissibility of evidence in a sexual assault trial, you can NEVER know if you're seeing all the relevant evidence.

In one case, in the 1980s, the only physical evidence was a single pubic hair from a black person, found on the cervix of the young, unmarried, white accuser. The fact that the accuser was living with her boyfriend who was black, and having a sexual relationship with him, was not allowed to be heard because "shacking up" and interracial dating were still socially stigmatized at the time, and the judge believed the accuser would be embarrassed by this, and that it might make the jury think worse of her. It was considered to be her "sexual history", and deemed inadmissible, even though it touched on the reliability of the only piece of physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime.

This evidence was kept from the jury even after the accuser perjured herself by testifying she lived with her mother.

In other cases, an accuser's history of making previous false rape accusations has been ruled inadmissible, as this constituted a portion of her "sexual history".

I don't like the idea of jury nullification, but IMO, if I were a juror in a rape trial, I would need to be more convinced of guilt than in a murder trial to convict, because you simply have no idea what you are being allowed to see, and what is being kept from you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get that withholding evidence is wrong, and that preventing the jury from seeing exculpatory evidence is also wrong. I don't quite see how that validates the original argument Paul made though. I'm not about to cite it as hate speech, but imho it was definitely flawed. I know you cannot speak for him, but I don't quite see how your statements link up with my original question.

I don't think jurors should assume that there is always evidence being withheld from them. They simply cannot know whether there is or isn't. Their job is to use the evidence they have to hand to determine guilt.

The problem in this situation is not the jury, and it shouldn't be for the jury to counter-act. The problem needs fixing in the laws and court proceedings; otherwise you (as a juror) are making an unsound call, based on "evidence" that possibly doesn't exist, and reducing your verdict to emotions and intuition.

[–]notnotnotfred 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]notnotnotfred 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ambientmouse 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]burntoast101 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I am not a psychiatric or psychologic professional so I can't comment on the treatability of BPD. As a private individual however, there is nothing you can do for a borderline and the best thing you can do for yourself is get away. I don't know if you know any borderlines, but I dated one. They are powerful in a way I can't adequately explain. Unbelievably manipulative, hugely erratic, and at times incredibly charismatic. Explaining the facts of their behavior to other people is hard because no one believes its possible. You wouldn't call it a hate site if they told you to get away from someone with antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths), and borderlines can be equally damaging to your life. On that note, antisocial personality disorder is currently considered untreatable by therapy. It is not impossible that BPD is similarly untreatable (not saying it is, I do not know and sites I looked at called it "difficult" to treat).

[+]Grapeban 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]burntoast101 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]burntoast101 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps personally unethical, but not professionally. There is a difference. Such terms are regularly used for severe mental disorders; a schizophrenic, a sociopath, a narcissist, even an alcoholic, etc. It could be argued that at a certain point these disorders come to define you. I am not inclined towards his point of view, but arguing for a physical deformity requirement for classification of disease isn't unprecedented (if a little out of date in my opinion).

We make pariahs of other mental disorders, particularly anti-social personality disorder (they pretty much just end up in prison) so this isn't something unique to Elam by any stretch. Unethical or misguided perhaps, but probably not hate speech either. Especially because, as I imagine you know, people with BPD certainly can be dangerous to your mental health. My own experience touched off years of depression and therapy.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Because BPD's are positively famous for being unable to run the Long Game, telling people what they want to hear.

Maybe if people gave them a chance. Maybe if people would refer to them as human beings as opposed to classifying them entirely by their illnesses. Maybe if people treat them like lepers in the first century.

Like Paul, I am not saying it cannot be fixed. But the odds of it are vanishingly small, and you're better off finding greener pastures. If you're family, you can't do that. But WE can. And for us the advice is sound.

Firstly, Paul was saying it cannot be fixed. No question. Direct quote:

There is no psychotropic medication that treats BPD and there is no known cognitive therapy that works with them. In short, they have an intractable condition that is impervious to treatment of any kind. They cannot be helped near as much as they can be avoided for the sake of helping others.

Secondly, my mum and dad were happily married for many years (and divorced for reasons entirely unrelated to her illness). The reality is that it is entirely possible to have meaningful, fulfillling relationships with people with BPD.

Your suggestions are as callous as saying that you shouldn't become friends with people with learning disabilities, because it's not worth the effort.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe if people gave them a chance. Maybe if people would refer to them as human beings as opposed to classifying them entirely by their illnesses. Maybe if people treat them like lepers in the first century.

Giving a BPD a chance is like inviting them to inspect your life so they can decide if they want to destroy it. Where is the percentage? Like the whole Marriage thing, the odds of, and effects of, a disatrous outcome are so huge, why take the chance? Do all BPD's have a golden vagina or something? Are they all Heiresses?

Why take the chance. In fact, you might be on to something with that whole 'BPD colony' thing...

The reality is that it is entirely possible to have meaningful, fulfillling relationships with people with BPD.

Here's a harsh reality... given options, why fucking bother? Like I said, golden vaginas, or simple entitlement complex?

Your suggestions are as callous as saying that you shouldn't become friends with people with learning disabilities, because it's not worth the effort.

A more apt analogy is people shouldn't become friends with the criminally insane, because it's more likely to end in misery than happiness.

But hey, throw your fits and demand your sympathy. We all know the apple doesn't fall far from the tree here, right?

[+]Grapeban -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Giving a BPD a chance is like inviting them to inspect your life so they can decide if they want to destroy it. Where is the percentage? Like the whole Marriage thing, the odds of, and effects of, a disatrous outcome are so huge, why take the chance? Do all BPD's have a golden vagina or something? Are they all Heiresses?

They're still humans asshole, and shockingly, you might quite like that human who just happens to have a mental illness. You might get to know them, and, Heavens above, figure that you love them.

Here's a harsh reality... given options, why fucking bother? Like I said, golden vaginas, or simple entitlement complex?

For most people, relationships aren't a cost/benefit analysis.

But hey, throw your fits and demand your sympathy. We all know the apple doesn't fall far from the tree here, right?

Go fuck yourself.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce1 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bohica69 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Elam's Jury Nullification article?

Essentially, he was saying "When mere accusations are enough to land people in jail, and the presumption of innocence has been tossed out the window, the only responsible thing a jury member can do is always vote Not Guilty."

I believe later on in the article he stated that when something has been proven to occur, then the jury should not nullify the sentence - but that we should keep in mind the that standard for guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "preponderance of evidence."

Which also ties in to consent directly, because it's impossible to prove consent or lack of consent. Even if you have a partner sign a sex contract, they still have a defense in claiming coercion. Nobody can prove otherwise, because there were only two people privy to the act, there are no physical cues that tell the difference between, say, rough sex and blackmail rape - which all ties in to - there's really, short of leaving irrefutable proof, no way to prove a rape occurred.

So, with those few exceptions where rape can be proved, would you rather convict the accused regardless of their innocence, or not?

If more of America understood law and the philosophies behind it, jury nullification in rape trials would be something far more frequent. It's only the social stances combining - that males are disposable, females never lie anyway, and all men actively want sex all the time - that puts innocent (or at least not-guilty) men behind bars with alarming frequency just in case. Which is why we have institutes like the Innocence Project, devoted just to getting innocent men out of jail.

At least, that's how I interpreted it back when I read it - so it's down now? Wonder why.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]4man 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This would require the jury to have perfect information though. Otherwise you are equally advocating letting guilty rapists go based on exculpatory evidence that doesn't exist. After all how else will the jury know when to nullify or not? Or perhaps the goal was to let everyone free until the laws change? Fat chance of that, and plenty of "MRAs want to let rapists go free" accusations to boot.

Yes. The principle is that if the trial is not a fair and honest one then innocent and guilty should be found not guilty. As for those making the accusations - when the rules of evidence are revised there will no longer be a need for jury nullification. There is every chance of laws changing when sufficient pressure is brought to bear on the legislature. After all, the weakness of the current laws was fashioned from similar pressure.

Bear in mind this appears to be a NA issue. Other jurisdictions have penalties, even mistrials, if the prosecution fails to share all of their information with the defence.

[–]MRB2012 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MRB2012 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The controversial article you are obliquely referring to here is an article written by Paul Elam regarding Rape trials and jury nullification. The topic pisses off a lot of Feminists because they fail to acknowledge the basic point of the article.

That basic point was that by the time trial comes around, men have had their human rights violated so many times, and the evidence has been filtered primarily for 'prejudicial' stuff (against the victim - for example a history of prior false accusations) to the point where the evidence and testimony presented at trial are literally untrustworthy. That a rape trial in America (or Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or Europe) is subject to so many one-sided special laws and protections that rape trials are no better than a Kafkaesque Kangaroo Court. That Due Process in the case of Rape has been fundamentally disemboweled.

And that the only rational response to this situation, is to refuse to convict anyone under such a corrupt system. As in, 'better 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent be wrongly convicted'.

And personally, I agree 100% with his position, and furthermore there is an incentive for Police and Prosecutors alike to 'get convictions' to placate the fear-mongered wimminfolk. Because of Feminist hate campaigns.

Does it horrify you? Then change the system. Because Paul was dead to rights on this one.

[–]Disorderly-Conduct 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jimmybrite 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pharmakoza -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I used to think some people attacked AVfM as misogynistic only to quell what they perceived as a threat to their ideology, but then I came across this article:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/marriage/11-more-reasons-for-a-straight-man-to-avoid-marriage/

Here's a quote from the article:

While some people (ok, women mostly) treat marriage vows as loose, conditional suggested guidelines, when I make a vow, I’m going to keep it.

This line communicates a disdain for women as a group for what the author sees as a failure of women to keep their wedding vows. I don't think anyone could make a good case that this is not misogyny and therefore hate speech. Granted, this is just one sentence of one article on the website, and I can confirm that several other articles do not hint at misogyny, I have come to believe that the claim that AVfM is hate speech is not completely unfounded.

[–]blueoak9 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notnotnotfred 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

While some people (ok, women mostly) treat marriage vows as loose, conditional suggested guidelines, when I make a vow, I’m going to keep it.

This line communicates a disdain for women as a group for what the author sees as a failure of women to keep their wedding vows. I don't think anyone could make a good case that this is not misogyny and therefore hate speech.

You could argue that it's a sweeping generalization, but it's a pretty low threshold for calling something "hate-speech" if that crosses it.

This line communicates a disdain for women as a group for what the author sees as a failure of women to keep their wedding vows. I don't think anyone could make a good case that this is not misogyny and therefore hate speech.

Is disdain all it takes to be labelled hate-speech? That's a very low standard. Most of reddit is doomed if that's the case.

EDIT: typo

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarsDie 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theegrimrobe -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A Voice For Men: Hate Speech?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	26
Comments	83
Date	July 19, 2013 3:19 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1imvqc/a_voice_for_men_hate_speech/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-voice-for-men-hate-speech.1168429 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168429

Comments