The manosphere should explicitly denounce abuse and coercive control

Novel-Tip-7570 · 2023-05-05T18:37:18+00:00

You might say duh, of course abuse is bad. But I'm not sure it's that simple. 1)Many prominent manosphereans are fetishizing oppressive...

[–]Soloandthewookiee 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (118 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-8710 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-87101 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-87101 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaterialIllustrious51 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

That's nice, they still vote for and empower wild psychopaths who... DO believe in, and deploy political action towards, those things.

I don't have to like conservatives to want them to have dignified lives, for me to want them to have a fair wage, workplace safety, housing, access to education and healthcare, etc. I wish they were better, I wish they weren't virulent theocratic psychopaths coming after LGBT people, I wish they brought their better traits to the table but sorry dude, nobody but conservatives owns any part of the 400+ bills going through various state legislatures targeting LGBT people, banning books, passing restrictions on voters to secure single-party control of states on the basis of wholly meritless conspiracy theories, etc.

So like, sure, cool, I guess they don't "believe in everything", but the material consequences don't care what they do or don't believe in, the material consequences ARE affected by what - and who - they support.

[–]Soloandthewookiee 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueshinx 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Scary when men voice what they actually think in a world that just keeps censuring us more and more, right?

More "scary" that it's all fascist, reactionary shit, blaming others, that inevitably boils over into the real world. Shockingly, the targets of such fascist, reactionary shit aren't too keen on a bunch of dipshits (you do not speak for all men) questioning their humanity or right to exist.

The manosphere is not supposed to be for women's eyes or ears anyway.

literally irrelevant

Here's an idea, stop snooping on our shit.

Here's an idea, stop holding dogshit views.

Maybe you won't get scared when we spitball ideas...

"DAE think maybe Hitler was right about gassing the Jews?" nothing to see here, folks, we're just "spitballing" about whether or not women are people or deserve uhhhh... checking accounts. "Just let us plan our efforts to deprive millions of people basic equality under the law in privacy, please!"

What a fucking "argument"

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

"More "scary" that it's all fascist, reactionary shit, blaming others,that inevitably boils over into the real world. Shockingly, the targetsof such fascist, reactionary shit aren't too keen on a bunch of dipshits(you do not speak for all men) questioning their humanity or right toexist."

I bet you are one of those people who believes that punishing the whole class accomplishes something huh?

"literally irrelevant"

When you are encroaching on shit that doesn't concern you I'd say it's relevant as fuck.

"Here's an idea, stop holding dogshit views."

Start with your own bullshit fascist-apologizing attitude towards censorship, free speech, and civil rights and liberties. Mind your own fucking business and perhaps stop whacking people with a stick and then you won't be crying that they look at you in a mean way.

Leave the Thought Control and Speech Censorship to religious zealots. The world is not going to fucking end just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with your attitude. I know it angers you that there are other wills out there in the world other than your own, so do yourself a favor and stay the hell out of those other people's FREE SPEECH spaces and stick to your own Safe Space.

And I see you degraded and derailed the whole attempted conversation into Godwin's Law. Good Job! You may pat yourself on the back and have a participation trophy! You are Awesome! You are Special! Way to Go!!!

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I bet you are one of those people who believes that punishing the whole class accomplishes something huh?

I bet you're one of those people who responds to the arguments arguments presented by your opposition in good faith.

/s

When you are encroaching on shit that doesn't concern you I'd say it's relevant as fuck.

When you're literally "discussing" taking people's rights away, it certainly does concern them. And also, it's not hard to protect discussion forums from view from unauthenticated accounts - but plenty of your PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE forums are perfectly visible without being logged in, and we can just read about what depravity you're "discussing" "with the bros".

Start with your own bullshit fascist-apologizing attitude towards censorship, free speech, and civil rights and liberties.

Show me on the doll where Twitter hurt you, man who thinks people shouldn't criticize your publicly-accessible discussion forum posts about how women shouldn't have equality before the law with men. You probably have very deep and consistent beliefs about free speech and censorship and civil rights and liberties. 🙄

Mind your own fucking business and perhaps stop whacking people with a stick and then you won't be crying that they look at you in a mean way.

You're equating people literally discussing the repeal of basic protections, such as no-fault divorce, women having access to abortions and contraceptives, and even depriving them of basic access to banking to "looking at you in a mean way" lol. Come on, defend the actual arguments you lot discuss in your secretive little caves, don't be shy now. Be honest, that's what strong men do, right? Unapologetically defend their arguments?

Leave the Thought Control and Speech Censorship to religious zealots. The world is not going to fucking end just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with your attitude. I know it angers you that there are other wills out there in the world other than your own, so do yourself a favor and stay the hell out of those other people's FREE SPEECH spaces and stick to your own Safe Space.

You are literally arguing for safe spaces free of criticism here. That's what set you off on this little tirade. You're complaining about the criticism you get when people access your publicly-available forums, and see what you're "discussing", and - criticize it to be utter, depraved, inhuman, despicable dogshit. Criticism is free speech, homeslice.

And I see you degraded and derailed the whole attempted conversation into Godwin's Law.

And I see you're unable to address the argument presented! Entirely predictable. Pointing out that I brought the conversation into the parameters set out by Godwin's Law doesn't actually debunk the point I was making, which you... conveniently have not responded to, and have instead on multiple occasions tiptoed around with this response. Weird!

It's almost as if you can't be honest about your position here, nor square your obviously contradictory position that "people not welcome in your safe spaces for misogynist bigotry shouldn't be critical of your misogynist bigotry" (this is compatible with FREE SPEECH because reasons), because they're indefensible to any decent person - so you throw around meaningless internet platitudes ("muh Godwin's Law! that means I won!") instead of responding to the arguments presented.

[–]just_a_place1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When you're literally "discussing" taking people's rights away, it certainly does concern them. And also, it's not hard to protect discussion forums from view from unauthenticated accounts - but plenty of your PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE forums are perfectly visible without being logged in, and we can just read about what depravity you're "discussing" "with the bros".

Authentication requires Identification. With identification comes intimidation if opinions not favorable to the powers that be are uttered there. When a forum logs everyone's identity the participants do not voice their true opinions on anything for the same reason nobody expresses their true feeling when they are in person. Nobody enjoys being ostracized, fired, or persecuted for Thought Crimes.

The best forums are those that respect anonymity and free speech because Hey! Guess what? Shit opinions and even shittier world views can be challenged there unless the mods turn it into an echo chamber by censoring any and all challenging opinions, facts, and views.

The manosphere in particular is a place where ideas, opinions, and world views go to get challenged. That is why men there never agree on anything and why it was nicknamed The Marketplace of Ideas where men go to share their ideas, have them scrutinized, and be exposed to other world views besides their own. This is why - ironically - it is right wing asshats who also want to shut it down just as hard as the assholes on the left with their woke bullshit.

"man who thinks people shouldn't criticize your publicly-accessible discussion forum posts "

Don't BS me. I have never, not once, said that you or anyone "shouldn't criticize." It's a very stupid thing to say when I am advocating for it while doing it! Read again what I said. My gripe is with censorship and the persecution of Free Speech, or it's ugly cousin, Compelled Speech.

"You probably have very deep and consistent beliefs about free speech and censorship and civil rights and liberties."

As a matter of fact I do. As you can blatantly see.

"You're equating people literally discussing the repeal of basic protections, such as no-fault divorce, women having access to abortions and contraceptives, and even depriving them of basic access to banking to "looking at you in a mean way" lol."

That sounds like a really bad BDSM Fan-Fiction I read once.

And I suppose you think all men are just a bunch of stupid dolts who will pick up our torches and pitchforks and rally to scuttle the weemens back into the kitchens just because some incel asshole says a bunch of cringy shit online? That we are all just fucking sheep? That we will all agree, open mouthed, to some idiotic ideas postulated online; as if we have no fucking brain of our own to process, and THINK, about what we see and hear for ourselves.

So what exactly are you afraid of here? Are you afraid that the rabble-rousers are correct in their views about women? And that the rest of us will believe and agree with them? Or are you afraid - as I suspect - that men are just a mob of idiots that can be swayed by any moron's soothsaying words because we are all just brainless sheep? Quite a dilemma for you. 🤔

If the trash talkers are correct then it is no wonder you fight for censorship and direct persecution. You are literally fighting against reality and your only means to do so is to block, deny, misinform, cover up reality, and hide the truth as much as possible from any prying eyes.
If you believe men are just malleable sheep who cannot be trusted with any opinions or views that are given to them by others - and which you do not agree with - then your genral opinion of men is much more fucking insulting and degrading that all the BS you're bitching about from the manosphere. You are literally scared that we do not have world views of our own, that we are all just drones mindlessly following what some idiots say online. And if you have such a low ass opinion about men, then where the hell do you come off wagging your finger about some men's low opinion about women? 🤨

"Come on, defend the actual arguments you lot discuss in your secretive little caves"

That is the weakest attempt at a strawman I have ever seen. I got half a mind to take my glove off.

A serious challenger would have asked me on what side of the argument do I stand before asking me how or why I defend it.

"You are literally arguing for safe spaces free of criticism here."

That is the 2nd time you try this sneaky bullshit. So let me be very clear in order to avoid any and all future confusion:

Criticism is Welcome! Censorship and those who advocate it can go to hell. Criticism = Free Speech. Now please, go ahead and try to twist that.

"And I see you're unable to address the argument presented!... It's almost as if you can't be honest about your position here"

What argument? What position? Be specific.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Authentication requires Identification. With identification comes intimidation if opinions not favorable to the powers that be are uttered there. When a forum logs everyone's identity the participants do not voice their true opinions on anything for the same reason nobody expresses their true feeling when they are in person. Nobody enjoys being ostracized, fired, or persecuted for Thought Crimes.

You are literally logged in, on reddit, on your publicly-available forums, right now. /r/TheRedPill, /r/MensRights, /r/marriedredpill, etc. - all public, for the rando unauthenticated user to view and (gasp) criticize, while you lot are all logged in talking about how women should be second class citizens on /u/spez's personal website - IP addresses and everything. While you aren't wrong, your dramatic catastrophizing doesn't just apply to forums that are inaccessible to unauthenticated commenters, but to any forum that isn't completely anonymous.

The best forums are those that respect anonymity and free speech because Hey! Guess what? Shit opinions and even shittier world views can be challenged there unless the mods turn it into an echo chamber by censoring any and all challenging opinions, facts, and views.

They're usually the worst cesspools of fascism and bigotry, in fact. But sure, "best", tell on yourself some more. The fact that right-wingers are not moved by evidence or good faith dialogue is indicative of the relative weakness of their arguments - it's worth pointing out, the edgy trolling, rejection of evidence, and blatant political hypocrisy is not new to right-wing culture, it's always been a feature of it.

The manosphere in particular is a place where ideas, opinions, and world views go to get challenged. That is why men there never agree on anything and why it was nicknamed The Marketplace of Ideas where men go to share their ideas, have them scrutinized, and be exposed to other world views besides their own. This is why - ironically - it is right wing asshats who also want to shut it down just as hard as the assholes on the left with their woke bullshit.

The manosphere is not where the term "the Marketplace of Ideas" originated (the general idea originated arguably as far back as the enlightenment, a time more welcoming to the manosphere's ideal legal framework concerning the rights of women), and no, there isn't terribly much disagreement there, except to what degree women suck and how few rights they should have. A distinction without a difference.

Don't BS me. I have never, not once, said that you or anyone "shouldn't criticize."

You literally cried "stop snooping on our shit" when I, ahem, criticized your dogshit "ideas" that (shitty) "men" have in their precious (but publicly available) little safe spaces. You did that. You did not rebut that you held the point of view that women should be second- or third-class citizens, you just objected to people reading - and criticizing - the bile manospherians "discuss" in their publicly available discussion forums.

Reads an awful goddamn like you're annoyed people are reading the posts in your public spaces, and criticizing them and you for holding views of enthusiastic bigotry.

My gripe is with censorship and the persecution of Free Speech, or it's ugly cousin, Compelled Speech.

Do you support Twitter, or indeed any private website, banning people for doing and saying objectionable activity? Because if you do, you do not at all oppose "compelled speech," you support it. The Nazis are free to spin up their own web host, or use the services of an available one. Epik exists. Hell, Tucker Carlson is starting up his show on Twitter, so it's not like the Nazis are unwelcome there anymore.

And I suppose you think all men are just a bunch of stupid dolts who will pick up our torches and pitchforks and rally to scuttle the weemens back into the kitchens just because some incel asshole says a bunch of cringy shit online?

No, I think plenty of men are kind, decent, upstanding people who aren't afraid of equality in the home or in broader society, and who do and will continue to fight for women's equality under the law. I don't think manospherians speak for all, or even most, men, I think they mostly speak for a limited number of millennial men who were held back in social development and chose to place the blame of all their problems on women and/or minorities and/or the political left.

I don't think these men will pick up pitchforks and torches - I think they'll just continue to vote Republican, knowing that these evangelical theocrats will continue to marginalize the rights of women under the law (re. abortion, access to contraceptives, no-fault divorce - anything that facilitates the economic independence of a woman from a man).

That we will all agree, open mouthed, to some idiotic ideas postulated online; as if we have no fucking brain of our own to process, and THINK, about what we see and hear for ourselves.

As the manospherian approach is usually to troll and be edgy rather than address arguments presented in good faith, yes, I do. I don't think the manospherian position is one rooted upon a base set of axioms from which consistent philosophy flows, I think it's largely rooted in resentment and hate, i.e, textbook right-whinging, and doesn't feature any kind of consistent philosophical underpinning other than maybe "one should improve one's self" which if that were the manosphere's only or even primary message, no one would have a fucking problem with.

So what exactly are you afraid of here? Are you afraid that the rabble-rousers are correct in their views about women? And that the rest of us will believe and agree with them? Or are you afraid - as I suspect - that men are just a mob of idiots that can be swayed by any moron's soothsaying words because we are all just brainless sheep? Quite a dilemma for you. 🤔

Not at all, I've made very little effort to hide the fact that I do not think manospherians are interested in any sort of good faith debate - your entire diatribe here denying your previous statements ("stop snooping on our shit [where we talk about whether women are people or not]") or addressing your supposed consistent and deep convictions for equal human rights for all while declining to state unequivocally your position on whether or not women are people entitled to equality before the law, etc.

If the trash talkers are correct then it is no wonder you fight for censorship and direct persecution. You are literally fighting against reality and your only means to do so is to block, deny, misinform, cover up reality, and hide the truth as much as possible from any prying eyes.

You give up the game by referring to them as trash talkers. Again, I've made no such claim that they're correct - in fact I'm quite confident that they're not, for if they were, they would choose to engage with the argument. They consistently choose not to, and instead choose to troll, to post edgy shit that they might themselves not even believe, and do not care whether or not they hold hypocritical positions.

There's absolutely no concern that "they're correct" when they're unwilling to even HAVE the dialogue that is needed to reach the truth, which is where your lie is exposed. There's no discussion or dialogue among the manosphere or among non-libertarian (like, ACTUAL libertarian, not "Republican who smokes weed afraid to tell his liberal social circle he's a Republican") right-wing circles, it's trolling all the way down.

If you believe men are just malleable sheep who cannot be trusted with any opinions or views that are given to them by others - and which you do not agree with - then your genral opinion of men is much more fucking insulting and degrading that all the BS you're bitching about from the manosphere. You are literally scared that we do not have world views of our own, that we are all just drones mindlessly following what some idiots say online. And if you have such a low ass opinion about men, then where the hell do you come off wagging your finger about some men's low opinion about women? 🤨

You're the only one implying this here. Again, the manosphere is not "all men" (nor even most), and I've been quite clear that I think these men are no more or less intelligent than the others, they're just choosing, quite deliberately, not to engage in the discussion in good faith. That's WHY they troll. Intelligent or not, their position is one based on resentment and hate, not any kind of consistent political philosophy.

Men aren't "malleable sheep" - humans are malleable humans - we are shaped by our culture (including what parts of that culture we choose to expose and surround ourselves by), our upbringing, and our history. I was once on the right. I don't even necessarily disagree with every position considered right - I just also chose that a belief in all human beings being equal is the kind of person I want to be. Having a consistent worldview and moral framework and principles - even if I get it wrong - is the person I want to be, rather than some troll pecking at others from the internet. I'd rather be correct (and making a good faith effort to be) than be a troll. Doesn't mean I don't think there's some merit to market economics, or churches as a socially focal institution, or introducing some deregulation and competition in education.

[–]just_a_place1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I literally only use this account mostly for this one subreddit. Once in a while I browse others and sure as hell I don't go to any cringy loser ass Men'sRights or even The Red Pill subreddit because those are not true to the spirit of the metaphor. The Red Pill subreddit is where all the incels migrated to when their shit got shut down, they infest it and they have fucked it up.

Question: Do you seriously not know that the majority of subreddit user accounts are fake and contain absolutely NO personal data or information? Haven't you ever wondered why there are so many "throwaway" accounts? As for IP addresses that's what VPNs and Onion Networking are for. Anyway...

The reason I got hooked on the manosphere is because that is when I first came across the most insane batshit crazy ass theories and conspiracies that dudes were throwing out there. It was entertaining picking apart their flawed ass reasoning and just blatant misinformation and then laughing at them lol. Then I would also throw in opinions and theories of my own while other guys would jump in and pick apart my shit or point out the flaws or point me in the right direction where I could get better knowledge and information. It's awesome way to network while fighting with other guys. Women simply don't comprehend this, the concept is completely alien to you. It's like roughhousing; but with words and ideas over the internet instead of physically.

"The fact that right-wingers are not moved by evidence or good faithdialogue is indicative of the relative weakness of their arguments"

Oh man! You just slapped me with some nostalgia right there. I have so many fond memories of hazing with Facts all the Conservatards and their stick-up-the-ass ideas about morality, religion, and especially creationism. I miss making them Reeeeeee like piggies when their stupid ass ideas simply wouldn't hold any water to basic scrutiny. That's when I first got familiarized with the Sunk Cost Fallacy when I was trying to figure out why those morons stuck to their guns and dug in their heals on absurd and irrational shit even after confronted with the facts.

That is the reason I try really hard never to be like those asshats. As Matt Dillahunty once said "I would rather believe in as many true things as possible and not believe in as many false things as possible." That way I am always on the side of the truth which means no amount of bullshit will ever measure up.

The idea of a "manosphere" as we call it today is indeed way the hell older than even the Enlightenment.

It seems to me that you're preoccupied with the opinions on "women's issues, rights, and freedoms" that a bunch of lurking incels may have in those parts and that is what is motivating your fascist/totalitarian bent.

If I were like you I would be using feminism as an excuse to censure women and start restricting some of your rights. But lucky for you I have a life and I don't got time to be worrying or stressing about policing a whole ass entire gender lol. I would be interested in hearing the arguments in favor and against it thought.

"Reads an awful goddamn like you're annoyed people are reading the posts in your public spaces, and criticizing them and you for holding views of enthusiastic bigotry."

I thought I had made it very clear. Criticizing is NOT the same as Censuring, Persecuting, Intimidating, and Threatening Free Speech and dancing with the notion of a Thought Crime and using social and government pressure to enact real world actions towards these ends. It is the difference between talking smack and actually smacking. Once you start putting physical hands on someone (figuratively speaking for the purposes of this example) then tend to the consequences.

For now it is just a bunch of rowdy dudes hanging out in the internet equivalent of pubs and acting rambunctious, blowing off steam. If you decide to call the sheriff in order to deprive all these guys of their regular haunt then don't cry when they take their "business" to the streets.

"As the manospherian approach is usually to troll and be edgy... I don't think the manospherian position is one rooted upon a base set of axioms from which consistent philosophy flows, I think it's largely rooted inresentment and hate, i.e, textbook right-whinging, and doesn't featureany kind of consistent philosophical underpinning other than maybe "oneshould improve one's self" which if that were the manosphere's only or even primary message, no one would have a fucking problem with."

lol Well it's NOT Harvard or Oxford if that is what you're getting at. You are doing the equivalent of a dude walking into a women's salon and then bitching about what goes on in women's salons: gossip, intrigue, fashion, conversation, banter etc... It's a MALE SPACE! What the hell do you expect? lol Cultured gentlemen discussing, quite formally, the latest social trends or perhaps sharing a little ditty about the exploits of yore? 😆

And then when you see it is a bunch of greasy ruffians doing what greasy ruffians do - while the rest of the men are caught up in the spirit of the place - you clutch at your pearls and shake at the jowls with indignant disapproval. All the while you cry for the nearest policemen to try and arrest those rambunctious "teenagers" and their loud boisterous talk and their loud young "whippersnapper music" 🤣

You seem to have some kind of strange lens in where everything you perceive you perceive it as coming from some king of "Right Wing" BS. Trust me. Right wing idiots squeal just as hard as your woke cousins.

The philosophy of self improvement was a core tenet of MGTOW, and we both know they were the ones who got persecuted the hardest because their biggest crime was making too much sense, what with their blasphemies about Self Actualization, Independence, Fiscal Prudence, Minimalism to Combat Consumerism, and all those other sacrileges against organized establishment feminism.

"all while declining to state unequivocally your position on whether ornot women are people entitled to equality before the law, etc."

You have not bothered to actually ask me what my position in anything is. And you are still not asking me - either out of pride or ego, but you're still trying to weasel a response out of me without actually being direct with me. It's these tiresome little mind games women play that are the reason I retired from the game. When talking to women is like talking to a creationist or a woke-wanker it sucks all the energy out of the room pretty quickly and although entertaining at first it gets old pretty quick.

So stop pussyfooting. You want to know where I stand on something then ask me point blank. Stop with the innuendos.

"They consistently choose not to, and instead choose to troll, to post edgy shit that they might themselves not even believe, and do not care whether or not they hold hypocritical positions."

lol yup that sounds like the manosphere alright. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you're not dealing with grown men who are serious minded? That perhaps - just perhaps - you are talking to teenagers who are exploring their social boundaries the way monkeys just throw shit just to see what happens? The edge lords can be obnoxious but that is why there is another Manosphere Axiom which goes: "Do not play chess with pigeons"

I am not a pigeon by the way. I just strut like one. When I don't feel like arguing something in good faith I simply just don't argue. I do not have the mental energy for that edge-lord shit. I just speak my mind and I say what I need to say.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Question: Do you seriously not know that the majority of subreddit user accounts are fake and contain absolutely NO personal data or information? Haven't you ever wondered why there are so many "throwaway" accounts? As for IP addresses that's what VPNs and Onion Networking are for. Anyway...

Of course I do. I'm also under no pretense that a majority of people are using these solutions. They may be throwaway accounts, but most people aren't techies, and even those who are a.) aware of, and b.) act on that awareness by using these solutions, will not do so perfectly every time. They got Ross Ulbricht, because nobody-but-nobody is perfectly secure.

That said, Ross Ulbricht was essentially distributing drugs (a victimless crime that is nevertheless against the law) - dipshits in the manosphere are just bigots, which is not (and shouldn't be) against the law.

Women simply don't comprehend this, the concept is completely alien to you. It's like roughhousing; but with words and ideas over the internet instead of physically.

i don't know where you're getting the idea that i'm a woman, dude

It seems to me that you're preoccupied with the opinions on "women's issues, rights, and freedoms" that a bunch of lurking incels may have in those parts and that is what is motivating your fascist/totalitarian bent.

yeah, generally speaking, opinions turn into votes which, in our hilariously gerrymandered and otherwise vote-suppressed society, turns into policy and I - as an adult - would like to be able to buy contraceptives despite not being married, would like the woman I am with to be able to get an abortion if it comports with her views, and do not need the government to be some moral authority on "the sanctity of marriage" by forcing people to stay together by removing the prospect of no-fault divorce.

Again, I'm not sure what's "fascist" or "totalitarian" to suggest that "private companies are allowed to moderate content that requires their private property to operate", but again, I don't expect consistent principle to be the guiding modus operandi here. By forbidding private actors from privately managing their private property, you compel speech.

The Nazis can say their shit on 4Chan or Epik-hosted web services (and now, Twitter). They can't in sane forums that want to attract advertiser revenue, because shockingly, Nike isn't keen on having their products next to MAGAGodGuns1776's latest screed about black-on-black crime (devoid of any historical or contemporary political or socioeconomic material analysis, no doubt) nor is IBM keen to remind everyone about their role in the Holocaust by having an ad of theirs next to some dipshit with a pensive Roman statue face going on about how some things about the Holocaust "don't really add up".

I thought I had made it very clear. Criticizing is NOT the same as Censuring, Persecuting, Intimidating, and Threatening Free Speech and dancing with the notion of a Thought Crime and using social and government pressure to enact real world actions towards these ends.

You didn't. By any reasonable read of your comment following mine. You replied to a criticism - not a call for censorship or government action or threats or anything even remotely resembling that, merely a criticism, with "Well don't look at our spaces!"

...whiiiiich sounds awfully like an objection to criticism itself, not any of the above.

If you decide to call the sheriff in order to deprive all these guys of their regular haunt then don't cry when they take their "business" to the streets.

Homie, a whole-ass bunch of these guys have plenty of overlap with the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, etc. They've long since gone past "taking their business to the streets."

You are doing the equivalent of a dude walking into a women's salon and then bitching about what goes on in women's salons: gossip, intrigue, fashion, conversation, banter etc... It's a MALE SPACE! What the hell do you expect? lol Cultured gentlemen discussing, quite formally, the latest social trends or perhaps sharing a little ditty about the exploits of yore?

Bro I can understand so-called "locker room talk", but I'm usually talking about how hot a girl I'm mutually acquainted with the guy I'm talking to is, or how maybe she's a little too proud and can sure dish out criticism, but cannot take it, or maybe discussion about how men and women seem to handle things differently, etc.

I'm not usually talking about how "they aren't people" or how "giving women the vote was for the birds" or how we "need to keep those harpies stuck in Crowder-esque marriages by repealing no-fault divorce" or shit like that. I don't usually commiserate with the boys by questioning other people's humanity.

All the while you cry for the nearest policemen to try and arrest those rambunctious "teenagers" and their loud boisterous talk and their loud young "whippersnapper music" 🤣

literally the only person who has, and continues to invoke the state here, is you.

The philosophy of self improvement was a core tenet of MGTOW, and we both know they were the ones who got persecuted the hardest because their biggest crime was making too much sense...

No, their biggest "crime" was their sociopathic misogyny, which, as it turns out, is not required for self-improvement nor some cringe claim of "going their own way" by making too much sense, brah. Seriously, are you reading this shit? Christ. I get that all dudes go through an edgy phase but by self-improvement you're supposed to grow out of it, empathize with your fellow human beings, understand more about the world and those with different experiences than you, and then keep what's good and ditch what isn't.

I happily call myself a feminist. That doesn't mean they're above reproach or criticism, I'm pretty sure I did levy a criticism upon contemporary women in that thread, I just didn't do so with a broad brush that oh-by-the-way questioned their humanity and subsequent entitlement to equal protection before the law, something those MGTOWers found pretty difficult to do.

...what with their blasphemies about Self Actualization, Independence, Fiscal Prudence, Minimalism to Combat Consumerism, and all those other sacrileges against organized establishment feminism.

As expected, you imply that that's what people had a problem with, not the rampant dehumanization of women. No one gave a shit about that, although again, all that shit went pretty quickly

You have not bothered to actually ask me what my position in anything is.

First off, I did ("Do you support Twitter, or indeed any private website, banning people for doing and saying objectionable activity?") - and secondly, your personal positions are not the focus of the discussion, the focus was "the manosphere" and specifically it's wild sexism, which you specifically did not deny existed.

Not YOUR opinions, but the fact that that shit goes fast and loose in those spaces which, shockingly, IS actually pretty concerning to most women and those men who would actually like to see a fairer, more equal, more just, more materially dignified, and better world in the future.

So stop pussyfooting. You want to know where I stand on something then ask me point blank. Stop with the innuendos.

You have consistently been free to state those as such. Again, not the point, and people are indeed free to read about you what you offer up - and thus far, you've attempted to a.) (poorly) insist that you didn't object to criticism when uhm... you did (but corrected yourself afterwards for which I will extend the benefit of the doubt), and b.) have either not repudiated the rampancy of misogynist bigotry within manospherian circles or have defended it (the rampancy, not the bigotry, feel free to clarify whenever).

People aren't unreasonable for reading into that, holmes. It's like conservatives who insist that they totally aren't racist, nope, no sirree. It's just, they'll only go up to bat for virulently racist accounts that were banned, not left-leaning journalists who, say, interviewed the kid that was responsible for the Elon Jet Tracker or whatever. The focus on one, but not the other, is somewhat telling. An honest free speech absolutist would fight for both, but the people who insist that they're free speech absolutists, very, very, seldom do.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you're not dealing with grown men who are serious minded? That perhaps - just perhaps - you are talking to teenagers who are exploring their social boundaries the way monkeys just throw shit just to see what happens?

Some, sure. But this is the internet, and groups (especially of that size) are seldom restricted to JUST that demographic - and we already know of plenty of manospherian "thought leaders" (i use that term extremely loosely) who are in their 30's and 40's, and I think we both know that ages 20-40 are not actually that uncommon in those circles.

And, again, if it was dating advice and self-improvement and stoic philosophy, you'd have a point - but unsurprisingly, it's also got a heaping fucking helping of misogyny and, actually yeah, that IS a problem, and it's further pretty fucking reasonable for women AND men to see a problem with that.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is the weakest attempt at a strawman I have ever seen. I got half a mind to take my glove off.

Quaking in my boots.

A serious challenger would have asked me on what side of the argument do I stand before asking me how or why I defend it.

But you barked at people literally just negatively reacting to (alternatively, "criticizing") the shit we regularly see on manospherian forums.

That is the 2nd time you try this sneaky bullshit. So let me be very clear in order to avoid any and all future confusion:

Criticism is Welcome! Censorship and those who advocate it can go to hell. Criticism = Free Speech. Now please, go ahead and try to twist that.

There's no "twisting" here, dude. I posted what I thought, and you responded with "Well, you don't have to look at what we post! [on publicly-available forums]". That was you. You did that.

Why, if not to avoid or head off criticism such as the type I had immediately before posted?

What argument? What position? Be specific.

That "casually declining to recognize women as human beings is distinct from merely 'spitballing' ideas", after which I referenced a hypothetical Nazi merely 'spitballing' about genociding the Jews. You responded with a declaration that the conversation had "degraded" (how?) because Godwin's Law. I don't deny that referencing Nazis is textbook Godwin's Law, however, I maintain that you're deliberately sanitizing the content being discussed by using such terms as "spitballing" to make it seem more innocent than it is - which is why I referenced the Nazi discussing genociding Jews, to highlight how fucking insane it is to equate THAT kind of "discussion" to merely "just us dudes spitballing!"

Parents "spitball" how best to get the kids and their teammates to the soccer tournament 115 miles away. Programmers "spitball" whether to use a bubble sort vs a binary sort in their program.

Nobody's "spitballing" about whether or not women count as people, or whether or not we should genocide entire groups of people. That's my position, which, naturally, you declined to address and instead said "Godwin's Law!" as if that invalidated the argument.

[–]just_a_place1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"But you barked at people literally just negatively reacting to (alternatively, "criticizing") the shit we regularly see on manospherian forums."

No. My issue is when censorship or coerced speech are put on the table.

"There's no "twisting" here, dude. I posted what I thought, and youresponded with "Well, you don't have to look at what we post! [onpublicly-available forums]". That was you. You did that."

Yeah, and I still stand by what I said because it's still good and solid advice, despite the fact that I delivered it in a snarky ass way. Shock Sites are also public forums and yet if the content in them is too shocking to the point where you feel it's fucking you up emotionally and psychologically, then the best course of action is to, um... stop looking at it. Same analogy applies with food for example, once you've had your fill, then have the willpower (or disgust) to say enough and walk away. It is not smart to continue eating/consuming/giving attention just out of spite - either with food, shock sites, or the manosphere. That's a battle you're not going to win because you are only damaging yourself. Stop caring about what a bunch of pimply goons in comfortable suburbs think.

If I were you, I would only worry if the same rhetoric and narratives found in manosphere circles start becoming visible in the economy, society, politics, or in the armed forces. That's when I'd be mildly concerned. Worthy of a raised eyebrow you may even say.

And let's be clear, I would never call, refer to, nor insinuate that the manosphere is in any way "innocent." I do not defend the evil which may come from men's hearts; but I make no apology for it either, because that is our nature. The moment we start excusing ourselves for our less than noble attributes is the way we open ourselves up to be spiritually carved up and re-pasted in the slavish image of whoever the holier-than-thou moral authority of the times may be. In present case, it is women; with their incessant "deconstructions" and bullshit inventions like "toxic masculinity."

As fully grown and fully integrated and self actualized men, we reject all of this de-constructive nonsense. A man is by nature both good and evil. How women should take that about our masculine nature is entirely up to you. We are capable of great love, mercy, and kindness, and we are also capable of great cruelty, atrocity, and hatred. We are both the builders of civilizations and their destroyers. The moment we pretend to be stupid and act as if our nature can be nurtured away (pray the gay away - educate toxic masculinity away) that is when the proverbial waters of chaos, that our old boy Jordan Peterson is fond of alluding to, start opening up from the very ground beneath us for another flood. For another Reset, a Reboot of an entire society so to speak. Note I am speaking in heavy metaphors in order to get my point across quickly.

"Nobody's "spitballing" about whether or not women count as people,"

Why would you care if some anonymous loser believes you are a person or not? It's aggravating as hell I'll grant you that, but what kind of a sad low IQ loser must one be to believe in such a dumb thing. I wonder, would it put your mind at easy if I were to just assert the obvious?

Women are human beings - just as intelligent and just as fucked up as men are.
Women are persons, you all have minds and wills of your own; which does get annoying at times when you all convince yourselves that you can tell us what to do, or try to manipulate us into doing it.
Women should have all the same rights and privileges that men enjoy because why the hell not? You feel like you can handle the fucking weight of the world then better for us! Less bullshit we as men have to deal with in life if you all share in the load. I am assuming of course that with shared rights and privileges there also comes accountability and responsibility.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. My issue is when censorship or coerced speech are put on the table.

this was never put on the table and, for the record, I am massively in favor of free speech that includes the rights of Nazis to speak. That said, I do not think "free speech" entitles one to the use of the resources of others (like, say, Twitter's/Facebook's/YouTube's servers) to facilitate said speech, and if their interests do not comport with allowing Nazis to be Nazis on their servers, so be it. For the most part people, and crucially, advertisers, usually concur with this approach for the reasons I highlighted earlier.

No one is having their right to speech abridged because they got got for being a troll, Gab and a whole hell of a lot of other places exist for them to go on their little screeds about how group x or group y are less than human.

Shock Sites are also public forums and yet if the content in them is too shocking to the point where you feel it's fucking you up emotionally and psychologically, then the best course of action is to, um... stop looking at it.

au contraire, free speech absolutist, the best counter to speech is more speech - AKA "criticism"

Same analogy applies with food for example, once you've had your fill, then have the willpower (or disgust) to say enough and walk away. It is not smart to continue eating/consuming/giving attention just out of spite - either with food, shock sites, or the manosphere. That's a battle you're not going to win because you are only damaging yourself. Stop caring about what a bunch of pimply goons in comfortable suburbs think.

Convenient, but no. Unrelenting criticism is the only approach there - food is not a group of agents organizing for legal and political changes to the worthiness of people to equality before the law. Humans most certainly are, and are specifically doing that in those forums. I'm sure they would love to stop being criticized, but that isn't going to happen so, as you've so eloquently put it, you could, of course, just stop reading the criticism.

You don't, though, and you feel a need to defend that kind of rhetoric FROM the criticism, which suggests its effectiveness beyond the apathy you propose.

If I were you, I would only worry if the same rhetoric and narratives found in manosphere circles start becoming visible in the economy, society, politics, or in the armed forces. That's when I'd be mildly concerned. Worthy of a raised eyebrow you may even say.

that's now, my dude. And I'd argue it's worth more than "minor concern" or "a raised eyebrow", as I'm not particularly interested in living in some neo-fascist, theocratic, authoritarian right-wing one-party faux democracy.

And let's be clear, I would never call, refer to, nor insinuate that the manosphere is in any way "innocent." I do not defend the evil which may come from men's hearts; but I make no apology for it either, because that is our nature. The moment we start excusing ourselves for our less than noble attributes is the way we open ourselves up to be spiritually carved up and re-pasted in the slavish image of whoever the holier-than-thou moral authority of the times may be.

These are fully contradictory statements. For one, I dispute the notion that it is man's "nature" to be some horrible, violent, authoritarian apologist - and secondly, I would argue that WHATEVER our nature is, it is the condition of humankind to rise above it, to meet our demons with the better angels of our nature. There almost certainly is a PART of our nature that cries for violent, authoritarian, brutish displays of strength, but we SHOULD temper that with the reigns of reason and empathy towards our fellow man, not simply resign ourselves to the imperfection laid down by nature. How is crafting one's self to be above that simple flesh and blood, motivated purely by reproduction and survival, the "slavish image", but giving up to one's biological imperatives and instinctive desires somehow NOT? Christ, if we listened to that art, politics, philosophy, science, that shit was all a waste.

Obviously male NATURE should've forced us to spend our short lives fucking and murdering one another, instead of ultimately raising nerds who put relentlessly professional people on the moon.

As fully grown and fully integrated and self actualized men, we reject all of this de-constructive nonsense. A man is by nature both good and evil.

First thing you've said I agree with - but I don't think that gives us license to indulge the evil because, gosh, it's just our nature. No, duty, as men, as humans, compels us to temper that evil with the good.

For another Reset, a Reboot of an entire society so to speak. Note I am speaking in heavy metaphors in order to get my point across quickly.

I'd encourage specificity over Peterson-esque "heavy metaphors". I don't think the concept of "toxic masculinity" is bad, but I do think men have yet to consider the argument it proposes, which is not - as it is implied "men bad" - but rather that "men can be evil", and, following thousands of years of hierarchical and religious mores governing what men "were supposed to be" and cordoning them into certain gender roles and behavioral standards (is THAT not slavery?) as opposed to fostering and encouraging that good side of their authentic selves? The patriarchy was not, and is not, a friend to men - even as it ostensibly privileges them, it cages them into an extraordinarily rigid cage of permissible behavior and purpose, much of which IS antiquated in a society which - ideally, hopes for ALL, women AND men, to actualize their honest purpose for their lives.

That set of permissible behavior and purpose can - and should - change not just to better suit the times and our sisters in humanity, but also to liberate men from the commoditizing existence of the present. Objection to this is just fear of change. Understandable fear, of course, but hardly a noble one worth clinging to.

Why would you care if some anonymous loser believes you are a person or not?

I wouldn't. I would care if a bunch of anonymous losers of voting age in my country were believing my sister, my mother, and countless friends of mine, weren't. That is, as I said above, more than "mildly concerning" to me. It was a stupid thing cordoned off to reddit just a few years ago. It's definitely not confined to there anymore.

I wonder, would it put your mind at easy if I were to just assert the obvious?

Again, your personal views were not the point of the discussion here.

[–]just_a_place1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I dispute the notion that it is man's "nature" to be some horrible, violent, authoritarian

That is not what I said. Stop adjusting the context of my meanings to fit your rebuttals. I choose my language and words very carefully.

My exact words:

"I do not defend the evil which may come from men's hearts; but I make no apology for it either, because that is our nature."

To which I elaborated:

"A man is by nature both good and evil... We are capable of great love, mercy, and kindness, and we are also capable of great cruelty, atrocity, and hatred. We are both the builders of civilizations and their destroyers."

I believe that only predators can stop and temper other predators. you will never see sheep policing the wolves. A man's violent and atrocious tendencies are a part of his nature and it is there to serve either a constructive purpose or a destructive one. Whichever end he chooses to employ his instincts depends on both his choices, values, and the values and choices of the society he's in.

"Obviously male NATURE should've forced us to spend our short lives fucking and murdering one another, instead of ultimately raising nerds who put relentlessly professional people on the moon."

That just tells me you don't fully understand nor grasp the depth and breath of masculine nature. Those nerds are just as masculine as the ones killing and fucking each other. Masculinity is a spectrum within our species and it is a universe all unto itself in the fact that Masculinity is not something shared with other "males" in the animal kingdom, or with anything else that is alive for that matter. Masculinity is something that is unique to Human Males, it is the stuff from which our world views (plural) come from. Call it biology, or evolution, or some kind of of god given spiritual drive (if you believe in a god). Women can share in masculine attributes but they do not share in it's nature. No woman is fully masculine just as no man can ever be fully feminine. There is overlap between these two natures in each other's makeup which keeps our distinct poles in constant growth and adaptation. I wont get more into it here because better and wiser men than me have gone mad just thinking about it.

"The patriarchy was not, and is not, a friend to men"

This "patriarchy" does not exist. It's an invented political boogeyman to be used as feminists see fit according to whichever agenda or narrative they feel like playing. It's the political and ideological equivalent of "the Devil." And it's a very stupid conspiracy theory at best no different than the "Illuminati" or "reptilians."

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is not what I said. Stop adjusting the context of my meanings to fit your rebuttals. I choose my language and words very carefully.

You're the one casually defending people being profound douchebags. Don't be fucking surprised when people read your words for what they fucking are, you don't get to say "Yeah, in ManSpace dipshits talk about denying rights to women all the time!" and then in the next breath talk about how "MAN IS GOOD AND EVIL, THAT IS SIMPLY HIS NATURE" and then get butthurt about how people quite understandably read that "evil" part you talked about to be "the part where they want to make women second class citizens". You don't have to Jordan Peterson speak, you can use specifics.

My exact words:

"I do not defend the evil which may come from men's hearts; but I make no apology for it either, because that is our nature."

Cool. Meaningless claptrap. No one's asking for your "apology" for it, they're asking for you to object to it - and that rather reasonable request is what sends you screeching down main street.

I believe that only predators can stop and temper other predators. you will never see sheep policing the wolves.

We aren't sheep, and we aren't wolves, and as such, the analogy doesn't work except to those who see (or who want to see) human relations as hierarchical, antagonistic, and zero-sum. Not only do I not believe that, anthropological evidence broadly doesn't support that. Cooperation is seen across time and space in human societies, and indeed the more cooperative a society has been, the more gender egalitarian it has been, as well.

A man's violent and atrocious tendencies are a part of his nature and it is there to serve either a constructive purpose or a destructive one. Whichever end he chooses to employ his instincts depends on both his choices, values, and the values and choices of the society he's in.

And, not being on the right, I don't think men are merely slaves to instinct, but can be (often aren't, but can be) governed by reason, empathy, philosophy, etc.

That just tells me you don't fully understand nor grasp the depth and breath of masculine nature.

I don't accept that "masculine nature" is an objective thing, or that the manosphere has it all figured out what with its pseudointellectual bullshitting and deliberate ignorance and/or misreading of history, science, etc.

Those nerds are just as masculine as the ones killing and fucking each other.

Nah, not generally according to the manosphere, to whom being some comically macho caricature of a man is the only path and anyone engaging in intellectual pursuits or giving a shit about labor rights or whatever else is some "beta cuck", in their erudite vocabulary. Furthermore, to the extent that one's "masculinity" is their management of their inner "good vs evil", I'm going to argue for the nerds, instead of the slaves to their passions.

This "patriarchy" does not exist. It's an invented political boogeyman to be used as feminists see fit according to whichever agenda or narrative they feel like playing.

It absolutely does, and absolutely has, and it does not mean "men bad" and never has, but again, manospherian types think reading is for "beta cucks" so haven't touched a primary source in their lives. Suffice it to say, there is no want for primary sources from any era (and, thanks to manospherians, even our contemporary one) arguing of the innate inferiority of women and for their political and social subjugation.

Goes back millennia, basically since the advent of agriculture, and it's absolutely everywhere and it's pretty hard to take seriously people who think it isn't real while we live in a country with zero female heads of state, 10% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women (and that's the highest it's ever been, by a country mile, depressingly), 28% of Congress are women (again, highest it's ever been by a wide margin), etc.

The idea that there wasn't male control of society, and that that control wasn't somehow conscious and deliberate, and that the men both in control of and being controlled by that male-oriented dominion didn't consciously believe in the subhumanity of women, is just factually bankrupt on every level. The feminists have this one in the bag, but as the manosphere is a fundamentally reactionary and right-wing group, I'm hardly shocked that "evidence" plays little role in the denial of this very real social structure.

[–]Neat_Coyote_8187 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat [score hidden] 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PresidenteWeevil -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_3963 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_3963 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_3963 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39630 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39631 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_39632 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]MrHustleTopGThey hate the truth 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ockwordsa homage to their hidden genitalia and hidden estrus 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ockwordsa homage to their hidden genitalia and hidden estrus -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ockwordsa homage to their hidden genitalia and hidden estrus -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Novel-Tip-7570[S] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Traditional-Bad-4055 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]rosephase 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobtheAxieManager 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-8710 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily, it only critiqued itself on how it organises in helping women not theories of patriahcy or how women are oppression

it was not, and is not, obligated to critique itself in ways that make it more comfortable to you

...when it comes to crimes against men they don't say anything

and, shockingly, when we discuss Critical Race Theory (like, the actual kind, not the dumbass conservative Fox News version of it) we're not really talking about racial crimes against whites, because broadly (key word there), the power dynamics did (and do) work in one direction: AGAINST non-whites, and in the case of gender relations, AGAINST non-heterosexual, female and non-binary people.

This is an uncontroversial assessment to make, but it's uncomfortable to whites (in the case of CRT) and men (in the case of feminism) who retreat to their standard and entirely historically-consistent response that "it makes us feel uncomfortable", and so we shift the focus of the conversation on OUR feelings rather than the very real injustices being perpetrated upon large groups of people.

They "don't say anything" because it's broadly women facing the injustices of the world, and (mostly right-wing) systems that don't take them seriously and seek to restrict their rights (abortion, access to contraceptives, etc).

[–]Due-Lie-8710 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]SwinginPastMyKnees_Red Pills Make Ur PP Bigger -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DumbWordsmithMulti-Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's one thing to disagree and express criticism; it's another thing to demand a swath of people do XYZ because you say so.

Those are literally the same thing. What is criticism, if not an attempt at persuasion through critical and, ultimately, negative association of a certain position? You're just objecting that people should be let off the hook for not having credible responses to criticism, which is, I mean, just the chef's kiss distillation of conservative political culture.

"It's MAH OPINION that vaccines microchip you!" Yeah, okay, but it's fucking false, and you absolutely SHOULD change your point of view in light of new evidence towards the position that most closely resembles reality. Or, "It's just my opinion that the all Jews must be dealt with and removed from the Americas, the Caucasus, and Europe" like, yeah, we should fucking criticize that and demand that those who hold that position not only change their position, but recant, ask for forgiveness and generally not be tolerated in polite society. I don't give a fuck, there is a purpose to criticism, it's not just to dent your shitty ideas and then not act.

Either way, your distinction here is one without a difference. It's still a free expression of speech that, predictably, people who hold utterly dogshit views (conservatives, mostly) obviously, object to.

[–]DumbWordsmithMulti-Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

OK... and what happens if those nutcases don't agree with you? Are you are in favor of censoring them, or no?

You're just objecting that people should be let off the hook for not having credible responses to criticism, which is, I mean, just the chef's kiss distillation of conservative political culture.

That's an odd response IMO. I made a distinction between the expression of disapproval (i.e., criticism) and the call for action.

They're "literally" not the same thing. Even you made that distinction here: "...we should fucking criticize that and demand that those who hold that position not only change their position, but recant, ask for forgiveness and generally not be tolerated in polite society."

You did it here too:

I don't give a fuck, there is a purpose to criticism, it's not just to dent your shitty ideas and then not act.

With all due respect, why blow a gasket ranting about "polite society" and then show a complete lack of politeness to people while engaging in civil discourse? I don't understand. I'm not even a conservative.

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

OK... and what happens if those nutcases don't agree with you? Are you are in favor of censoring them, or no?

They usually do, and no, though I will argue that "Twitter banning overt racists in order to make a palatable social media environment for their advertiser customers" is not, in fact, "censorship" in any legal sense of the word. We should have the good sense to make polite, public society uncomfortable and difficult for people who harbor extremist, dogshit points of view, but I note conservatives have a penchant for making life quite easy for people who hold these views that they allegedly vehemently disagree with.

Twitter or Facebook making their platforms suitable for advertisers by making them unsuitable for bigots is just a consequence of free markets.

That's an odd response IMO. I made a distinction between the expression of disapproval (i.e., criticism) and the call for action.

Right, and I'm suggesting that criticism absent a call for action is tantamount to no criticism at all.

With all due respect, why blow a gasket ranting about "polite society" and then show a complete lack of politeness to people while engaging in civil discourse?

There is nothing "civil" about people calling for the exclusion, otherization of, or dehumanization of other people. They might say their vile points of view calmly and with rational words, but they are still vile and decidedly impolite points of view. A calm demeanor - especially held by those who enjoy material security and privilege - is not an argument, nor is it their argument.

[–]DumbWordsmithMulti-Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They usually do, and no, though I will argue that "Twitter banning overt racists in order to make a palatable social media environment for their advertiser customers" is not, in fact, "censorship" in any legal sense of the word. We should have the good sense to make polite, public society uncomfortable and difficult for people who harbor extremist, dogshit points of view...

Fair. I agree with this part.

Right, and I'm suggesting that criticism absent a call for action is tantamount to no criticism at all.

I can see your point.

However, they're not the same thing. That was the only point I made.

Ideally, I prefer civil, open debates where criticisms are expressed and solutions are pitted against each other.

There is nothing "civil" about people calling for the exclusion, otherization of, or dehumanization of other people. They might say their vile points of view calmly and with rational words, but they are still vile and decidedly impolite points of view. A calm demeanor - especially held by those who enjoy material security and privilege - is not an argument, nor is it their argument.

I never said there was. But I wasn't doing any of that. I was asking with regard to our exchange.

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

[–]Teflon08191 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know. I guess in principle, I'm not either, but I'm not going to lose sleep over Twitter or Facebook banning Nazis. To the extent that conservatives get swept up in that, eh, conservatives support Nazi-like things, so that's hardly surprising.

No one's getting banned for whining about top marginal income tax rates or inefficient U.S. sugar policy, they're getting banned for being bigots. I support free speech, but you don't get free speech in a capitalist society where social networks make their money via advertisement, and where prominent companies don't want their brand name next to Ted Nugent's latest screed about Jews or lesbians or black people or whatever.

Honest free speech is protected by a platform like Mastodon, which is decentralized and which anyone can use to host an instance, even the Nazis. Now, most people will not federate to their instance, because most reasonable people aren't under the notion that mauve they just haven't heard this real zinger of an argument as to why we should gas the Jews, so the end result is effectively the same.

That is, at least if conservatives are to be believed, that they're not anything at all like Nazis and would never support such inhumane barbarism. I wouldn't take that bet, but.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Teflon08191 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there are people who are literally trying to ban books, pornography and drag shows.

Ban those things from being promoted to children, yes. And good on them for doing so because that shit is getting out of hand.

I don't doubt that the pendulum will swing too far with them in time as well just as it did with their opponents, but right now they're still very much the counter-culture.

If the manosphere doesn’t want people to tell them they should take a hard line against abuse perhaps they shouldn’t be so constantly defensive when it is criticized as promoting abuse.

See my other comment:

Suffice to say, the "Everyone must denounce terrible people!" mentality inevitably paves the way to book burnings, Salem witch trials and all kinds of other evil things, because "terrible" is almost never used objectively, let alone responsibly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PeaAffectionate5667 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Safinated 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotLehninger 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due_Author350No Pill 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Novel-Tip-7570[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due_Author350No Pill -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_3963 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Tomorrow_3963 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AliochaK1109 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cdclopper 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AliochaK1109 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lallelelu 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AliochaK1109 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-8710 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Due-Lie-8710 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

Humans do not tend to respond to direct threats of violence with cool-headed debate. If someone is out in the streets shouting "all (insert group) must be killed," right next to someone who happens to be a member of that group, the likelihood of violence happening goes up, not down. Further, the call for violence can rightfully be taken as a threat, in which case the argument for self defense becomes a factor. If I'm a white male and someone is looking at me yelling "All white males must be exterminated immediately," with a look of rage/insanity in his eye, am I to debate him? Fuck no. I'll knock him out and call the cops. Especially if he's in a public space that I frequent. I have a right to be there and to feel safe in doing so. If I am prohibited from responding to direct threats to my life in such a setting, then I cannot operate there safely or freely anymore. His "freedom" then infringes upon my own. If the dude is openly carrying a gun, which is legal in many places, then the threat level goes up even more.

In self defense cases, people are often acquitted for killing someone if they can demonstrate that that person was threatening them and that they feared for their life. This includes cases where the person was never able to succeed in harming them physically. The threat of imminent danger can be enough justification for self defense, in and of itself. These cases can be messy and difficult to iron out, even with current laws that are fairly explicit. If your view was enacted, the most important standard for determining whether or not something is murder, or self defense, would be out the window. Courts could no longer arbitrate these cases on any kind of rational legal grounds.

The trouble with your position is fairly obvious to most people, and is why calls for violence are not generally classified as protected speech. If allowed, the crazies would come out of the woodwork. Yes, they'd then "be in the open" for all to see, but this would just lead to escalation in a lot of cases. The streets would literally run red until someone put a stop to it.

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

direct threats

I agree with you. Terrorism. Violence. Has no place in civil society. Which is why listening to those who think it’s okay, and would advocate for it; is important. As how would a population make an informed decision; if contravening viewpoints are censorship out of the public discourse? Or wider still; in educating a populace?

For example there was a post on the front page recently, about a Neo Nazi having all his facial tattoos removed. Presumably renouncing his former beliefs. If he was judged prior to his ideological shift, or censored out of any form of communal support; which direction might that person have leaned into? Similarly too the red-pilled associated mass shootings. A lot of reports of ‘feeling unheard’, or ‘isolated’, appeared to be a common factor.

Again I’m not advocating for violence. Simply to to keep the public discourse open. To all. Not only in attempting to dissuade extremism, but equally as important; to understand it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]0DarkFlirty 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reptheft 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]HazyMemory7They hated me because I spoke the truth 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Abuse denounced. There you go. Can you proclaim that world hunger is bad? Who sits there spending their team denouncing things that most decent people obviously acknowledge to be wrong. This post is a "touch grass" moment. I don't spend any time feeling guilty about immoral things that other people do nor feeling like I have to come out and say that those things are immoral.

And im pro-choice but that video was downright embarrassing...an abortion is not something to celebrated. Getting reproductive rights is a positive but abortion is an unfortunate, difficult decision, or at least it should be, but statistically most of the time it's just women being irresponsible about sex and using it it as pseudo contraception. Assault and contraception failure rates don't come anywhere close to making up a majority part of abortions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HazyMemory7They hated me because I spoke the truth -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RandomRedditGuy322Half My Posts Get Removed by the Jannies Pilled 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AzihayyaWhite Knight, the Voice of Femnai 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RandomRedditGuy322Half My Posts Get Removed by the Jannies Pilled -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

This guilt by association is ridiculous. The manosphere is not a singular entity or some kind of organization, it's just an umbrella term. It consists of thousands of decentralized sub groups that all have different views and philosophies. The manosphere as a whole doesn't exist and therefore cannot control what individuals do. Violence is already condemned in many sub groups. All it takes is a few unhinged people to split off and form their own sub group.

Imagine some random person committing a crime, and then people holding you accountable for their actions because you're both from the same city. It's unrealistic to bear responsibility for the actions of disgruntled and unhinged individuals that decided to fly the same flag.

It's exactly the same as how many feminist don't want to be associated with the "kill all men" folk.

[–]DeshaunWalt -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]meisterkraus [score hidden] 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Novel-Tip-7570[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]meisterkraus -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Novel-Tip-7570[S] 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]meisterkraus -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrHustleTopGThey hate the truth -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daniel_Bryan_FanBlue Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]just_a_placeRetired from the Game -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Mehh! The manosphere should apologize! Mehh! They all a bunch of turd flinging térrerists and saxomophones living under bridges and kick puppies. The beasts!

The manosphere's reaction:

Baaaahhhh Ha Ha ha ha !!! 😆

Good luck asking a disparate group of men who never agree on anything to agree that they should all sit down and write a collective letter of apology to a bunch of stupid snowflakes who are perpetually offended by everything.

You'll have better luck herding cats, mopping the ocean, or blocking the sun with one finger.

Legal Disclaimer: The Manosphere is not responsible for any actions, views, or opinions of disparate groups of men who may frequent, comment, or haunt any male spaces. Any and all tomfoolery resulting from the crass and churlish behavior of monospherites is solely the responsibility of each individual citizen ape, and in no way should be interpreted as our plan to take over the world through Patriarchy and subtle political satire. Heil Hydra! 🤡

[–]bodaciousbonsai -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AzihayyaWhite Knight, the Voice of Femnai 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I absolutely agree. Right now the MRA movement isn't going anywhere because it has one singular goal: to strawman feminism in order to blame feminism for all of men's problems, rather than taking any accountability for themselves and their own gender group. Feminists would likely agree on a whole host of men's issues if they bothered to listen at all--but that's not the point of the MRA movement. It's obvious that the movement is actually a lightly veiled reactionary anti-women's movement that hides behind anti-feminism, while actively engaging in historical revisionism to remove women's status of oppressed so that feminism can no longer serve as a vanguard for women's rights while attempting to reestablish hegemonic masculinity--the complete antithesis of what MRAs sometimes try to claim is their goal.

The notion is that intersectional justice is BS designed to villainize white men as an oppressor, and that's just false. MRAs would, in theory, benefit tremendously from adopting an intersectional perspective; but they're not interested in that. They're interested in destroying intersectional justice and employing their hegemonic masculinity to create a reign of power focused on their indignation and their hatred of women.

The only solution to this problem is if mature and responsible men speak up and become central to the manosphere, and espouse virtues of personal accountability and encourage other men to be tolerant and accepting of people with differences. Men could have the world if we, as a gender group, bothered to hold each other accountable and make the kind of changes that only we have the power to. Contrary to what MRAs believe, men are the biggest obstacle in our way of making progress, from the circumcision issue to the draft to retributive justice. We could have a body positivity movement, and we could be safer individuals that would be much more inviting and rewarding to date, if we bothered to make a change within our gender-group.

[–]Due-Lie-8710 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

absolutely agree. Right now the MRA movement isn't going anywhere because it has one singular goal: to strawman feminism in order to blame feminism for all of men's problems, rather than taking any accountability for themselves and their own gender group. Feminists would likely agree on a whole host of men's issues if they bothered to listen at all--but that's not the point of the MRA movement. It's obvious that the movement is actually a lightly veiled reactionary anti-women's movement that hides behind anti-feminism, while actively engaging in historical revisionism to remove women's status of oppressed so that feminism can no longer serve as a vanguard for women's rights while attempting to reestablish hegemonic masculinity--the complete antithesis of what MRAs sometimes try to claim is their goal.

I don't agree with ops premise because the manosphere is not a hinges however I do think redpillers should denounce it , I disagree with you thou on MRAs , the reason MRAs attack feminists is because feminism in itself almost always make light of men's issues and boils it down to toxic masculinity and it that's not enough they go out of their way to protest anyone that doesn't remotely do things their way even if they aren't MRAs , there are even ex feminist and even people who still identify as feminist that have seen the antimale sentiment , the fact that they also control mental health research and academia and they didn't care about men Also as a side note MRAs aren't actually redpillers because redpillers don't advocate for men issues , MRAs do , despite the pushback , despite the hatred people have for them theu still put way more effort into men's issues than feminists ever glad despite having less influence generally

The notion is that intersectional justice is BS designed to villainize white men as an oppressor, and that's just false. MRAs would, in theory, benefit tremendously from adopting an intersectional perspective; but they're not interested in that. They're interested in destroying intersectional justice and employing their hegemonic masculinity to create a reign of power focused on their indignation and their hatred of women.

MRAs aren't even anti intersectionalism, they also focus on race and some of them consider trans issues, it's like saying because terfs exist I should discard feminism even thou I could pretty much judge feminism by alot of things and there are alot of terrible things that people have done or even advocated for in the name of feminism

The only solution to this problem is if mature and responsible men speak up and become central to the manosphere, and espouse virtues of personal accountability and encourage other men to be tolerant and accepting of people with differences. Men could have the world if we, as a gender group, bothered to hold each other accountable and make the kind of changes that only we have the power to. Contrary to what MRAs believe, men are the biggest obstacle in our way of making progress, from the circumcision issue to the draft to retributive justice. We could have a body positivity movement, and we could be safer individuals that would be much more inviting and rewarding to date, if we bothered to make a change within our gender-group.

There are people who have done this and everytime they have been protested by the left even when they didn't have a bad take , e.g Jordan peterson and he wasn't even an MRA even leftist like destiny and vaush , erudite kidology , even people in podcasts like waving with the red flags admitted that the left doesn't actually have a proper frame work for masculinity so it's hard to addresse the issues men have , and some of them had to admit that yeah alot of things women do that , Chris Williamson isn't a feminist but he has had discussions with people and some of them in the mental health industry have admitted that they have underserviced men even Dr K has admitted it, these are industry thay feminist are present in and If we are following your logic , they knew and did nothing

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

[–]Livid_Regret7884 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wide-Illustrator2906 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Define what you mean by "coercive control" and "oppressive systems." If by these terms you merely mean "politics I don't agree with," or "traditionalist/reactionary value systems," then my response would be an emphatic NO. There is no "we," in this case. Folks of the Manosphere have wide ranging sociopolitical views and the goal should not to be to create a homogeneous echo chamber. If you mean actual abuse/coercive control (as in, direct threats of violence, etc), then of course. There are already plenty of rules prohibiting such behavior in most reputable forums.

Basically, I see your call here as either:

a.) Another veiled attempt to stifle free speech,or

b.) Virtue signaling by continuing to drone on about issues already agreed upon by pretty much everyone who isn't a shit heel, and which are already overwhelmingly enforced by most platforms.

Title	The manosphere should explicitly denounce abuse and coercive control
Author	Novel-Tip-7570
Upvotes	9
Comments	221
Date	May 5, 2023 6:37 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/138xds9/the_manosphere_should_explicitly_denounce_abuse/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-manosphere-should-explicitly-denounce-abuse.1218165 https://theredarchive.com/post/1218165

Comments