Ben Shapiro is not a role model

[–]foot_kisser 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]HellstromC[S] -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]HellstromC1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Those are the laws that the allies crafted after WWII at Nuremberg. They demanded that (eg) civilian populations not be transferred. YOU DEFEND THIS?

[–]foot_kisser 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shaibis 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

ee4m is annoyed because MRAs often talk to right wingers. When he's told that MRAs like myself talk to anyone, and that only right wingers have ever given me a fair hearing, let alone refrained from smearing and demonizing me, he tells me that the "leftists" I've talked to aren't really leftists. They're actually "hard right".

Also, all the times communism has been tried, it wasn't really communism, it was hard right wing fascism.

And of course, he and his friends here demand ideological purity. We're not allowed to like what Ben Shapiro says about identity politics in the west, because he once tweeted, five years ago, that he supports certain Israeli measures to deal with the Palestinian conflict. Because that's exactly what the men's movement needs. To take a side in that endless steaming pile of shit, and alienate half the population of the world no matter which side we pick. We must pick a side!

Fucking hell, I'm sick of this. You know why I like Steven Crowder? He doesn't insist I take a conservative position on every last fucking thing--he just wants to learn, and help his audience learn, about men's issues.

[–]grasshopa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Labels are useful. They're also a double edged sword.

I think I've been consistent in my position that the moment I am required to toe a party line (whether it's with AVFM, Honey Badgers, NCFM, whoever), that will be when I wish those groups well and go on my way.

I almost left AVFM years ago because production staff were considering muting me during a radio show so as not to offend theists when discussing feminism as a religious belief system. Paul ended up having to talk to me personally and assure me I had 100% freedom to say whatever I wanted. Alison knows that if I'm forced to take any given position as a Honey Badger, I'll kiss her organization goodbye.

If I'm prepared to leave organizations where I have friends, and who do good work, if they impose positions on me that I must uphold, I can't imagine what these douchebags think I'm going to do about their demands that I disavow Ben Shapiro because he once tweeted something they don't like.

[–]grasshopa 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because people are tribal by nature. Labels are shorthand for constellations of views.

Is Christian a useful label? I think so.

If someone tells me they're a Christian, I can safely assume they believe Christ was the son of god, he died for our sins and was resurrected. That label won't tell me anything about his views on transubstantiation, or whether because Christ was poor the church should be poor, but it will give me a blueprint as to part of where he's coming from.

If someone tells me they're Jehovah's witness, I won't be buying them a birthday present or sending them a Christmas card, though I might send them a special greeting on Good Friday or Easter.

If someone tells me they're feminist, I can safely assume they believe in "patriarchy", "rape culture", the "historical oppression of women" and other pillars of feminist thought. Sure, I might not always be correct in my assumptions, and I won't know off the bat whether they're trans-inclusive or trans-exclusive, or sex pos or sex neg, but more often than not I will be correct in those core assumptions.

If someone tells me they're libertarian, I'm going to safely assume they're against gun control, against federal regulation of people and industry, and put a priority on individual freedoms and rights. I will be able to assume that if they oppose abortion, they will probably do so on the grounds of personal liberty (of the fetus) and personal responsibility (of the parents).

Also, if something is labelled beef at the supermarket, I can safely assume it was once part of a cow.

[–]grasshopa 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Because people are tribal by nature. Labels are shorthand for constellations of views.

Ya. That's precisely my problem with it. Sure, those examples you listed, as a bird's eye, are generic enough to usually apply, but those labels carry more information along with them than just that. For instance, if someone is a Christian, do they support gay marriage or not? Which parts of the bible do they follow, and which do they not?

However, the real problem I have with labels is their more insidious nature. When people incorporate a label into their ID, there is necessarily a certain amount of sacrificing of one's identity to that of the whole. This inevitably takes the form of surrendering one's critical thinking in order to maintain cohesion with the "tribe".

Most large scale atrocities committed throughout history can be traced back to this key behavior.

Now, I'm not an idealist. I know damn well that no matter how much I preach on this topic, society just isn't capable of overcoming this flaw. It's just sad to me to see this pattern repeated...over...and over...and over again, with no awareness of how to correct the mistake.

But I do enjoy bitching about it.

Also, if something is labelled beef at the supermarket, I can safely assume it was once part of a cow.

Uh...

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya. That's precisely my problem with it. Sure, those examples you listed, as a bird's eye, are generic enough to usually apply, but those labels carry more information along with them than just that. For instance, if someone is a Christian, do they support gay marriage or not? Which parts of the bible do they follow, and which do they not?

Do you know any secular atheists who object to gay marriage? There may be some, but I've not encountered them. The label Christian doesn't tell you whether this particular Christian objects to it, but it tells you that there's a good chance they might. Certainly a better chance than if they told you they were a secular atheist.

When people incorporate a label into their ID, there is necessarily a certain amount of sacrificing of one's identity to that of the whole.

That's how people get things done. I'd suggest you watch some of Jonathan Haidt's videos on "sacred objects" and the group psychological function they serve for humans.

This inevitably takes the form of surrendering one's critical thinking in order to maintain cohesion with the "tribe".

Humans are a social species. We will sort ourselves into tribes. It's just what we do. There are very very few people who can function cooperatively with others without a sense of tribe, or a "sacred object" to circle around. What we do with that cooperation is a different thing--it can be good or bad in the objective sense, but those actions look very different from within the circle than from outside of it. Particularly among extroverts, who are the majority of the population, group affiliation is important. I am quite content to burn all of my social bridges for the sake of my principles, but most people won't be. That's just reality.

Most large scale atrocities committed throughout history can be traced back to this key behavior.

All of them can. So can all large scale anythings. Everything we have accomplished that involved more than a handful of people, whether it's good or bad, is because of our capacity for this key behavior. Don't want genocides? Yeah, you can have that, but you won't have freeways or sewer systems or democracy or that handy computer you typed this on, or the internet that delivered your words to me.

What you'd have are the small-scale atrocities and accomplishments of other species. Hand-fashioned compound tools and genocides that are limited to 150 individuals.

Now, I'm not an idealist. I know damn well that no matter how much I preach on this topic, society just isn't capable of overcoming this flaw.

That's because it's not a flaw. It's a double-edged sword, for sure. But a flaw? Nope. Chimpanzees don't have this "flaw". They can't maintain groups of more than 180 individuals, because the genetic bonds between the males get too watered down for them to tolerate each other.

There are three basic types of relationships in nature: kinship, reciprocal and dominance. Humans have managed to use placeholders like group identity labels (whether it's race, patriotism, politics, the water buffalo lodge, whatever) to stand in for the kinship bonds that maintain group cohesion for chimps only as far as a hundred male members. And you'd be stunned at how much time those males still need to invest in male bonding in order to simply keep the peace, maintain tolerance and reinforce what little cooperation there is.

It's just sad to me to see this pattern repeated...over...and over...and over again, with no awareness of how to correct the mistake.

That's because it's not a bug, it's a feature. And everything you're looking at when you look out the window is a direct consequences of that. The street lights, the homes, the cars, the paved roads, the sidewalks, and the fact that half the houses aren't burning because one guy decided the neighbor two doors down looked funny at his wife and some other guy decided those neighbors over there don't quite fit in.

I suppose once I understood the double-edged nature of this human tendency, I stopped resenting it.

Also, if something is labelled beef at the supermarket, I can safely assume it was once part of a cow.

Well, there's the thing. If you really think about the level of cooperation it takes, the thousands of individuals involved, to put that piece of cow in a package on my supermarket shelf with a price sticker that can be scanned by equipment that took the effort of perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals across time to create and put there... and I can trust every step of the process. I can trust that it's beef and not dog. I can trust that it's not contaminated with E. coli. I can trust that it wasn't stolen from someone who should have been compensated, and trust that the driver who delivered it and the butcher who trimmed and packaged it have been paid for their labor.

That's all part of this thing humans do that you consider a flaw. Is it dangerous? Hell yes. But a flaw? Not by a long shot.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My friend, honest advice. You are so blinded by your bias you can't see past your hallucinations. Stop for a moment and think about how certain you are of your beliefs. How is it only you and your ilk can "see the truth", while everyone else is so obviously wrong?

That's an indication, a very strong one, that you are deeply biased.

The right is not some evil monster out to destroy society in favor of the rich. No more than the left is some evil monster out to destroy society in favor of the poor. Reality is complex and rarely do you have such black and white contrasts.

Likewise, there can be equality issues that don't demand taking a stance on a conflict half a world away. That insistence of yours, of mixing everything into one big ball of your beliefs, more than anything else, demonstrates that your views are remarkably naive and simplistic to the point of caricature.

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not everyone one is born with the same opportunity then.

Nor can they be or should they be. If you decide to hire tutors to help an individual child do well, that child will have greater opportunity than their peers. But only in a fascist state could you be prevented from doing so.

the right of the mrm supports taking social safety nets away from poor men

Restricting the safety net to those that genuinely need it rather than those who adjust their circumstances to take advantage of it when they don't need it is not the same as taking it away.

as the middle shrinks and the number of poor grow.

That isn't what happens though. Reaganomics expanded the middle class and raised living standards for the poorest too as technological innovation thrived and increased tax yields enabled greater redistribution and government programmes.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nor can they be or should they be. If you decide to hire tutors to help an individual child do well, that child will have greater opportunity than their peers. But only in a fascist state could you be prevented from doing so.

Yeah, this is a private decision. Not like a system that for example - many cannot afford health care and most wont have access to a good education.

Restricting the safety net to those that genuinely need it rather than those who adjust their circumstances to take advantage of it when they don't need it is not the same as taking it away.

Rich class, class politics. Of course the rich will have an ideology is hostile to the people that are left with little and very little oppertuinity.

That isn't what happens though. Reaganomics expanded the middle class and raised living standards for the poorest too as technological innovation thrived and increased tax yields enabled greater redistribution and government programmes.

Reganomics expanded the middle class during the inital boom years, then when it failed it gave it all back, america has around half the people living in poverty, the very disadvantaged areas are like the third world.

Like the first right libertarian experiment - the chilian dictatorship.

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, this is a private decision. Not like a system that for example - many cannot afford health care and most wont have access to a good education.

It is always a private decision. Like if you chose to sacrifice living in a better area to ensure you can afford healthcare insurance.

Of course the rich will have an ideology is hostile to the people that are left with little and very little oppertuinity.

The right are not exclusively rich, they are motivated by fairness, not entrenching advantage.

Reganomics expanded the middle class during the inital boom years, then when it failed it gave it all back, america has around half the people living in poverty, the very disadvantaged areas are like the third world.

Relative poverty isn't really a useful measure in the USA because of the variance of living costs in state to state. You can live like a king in Cleveland on what would leave you in penury in San Francisco.

Like the first right libertarian experiment - the chilian dictatorship.

A dictatorship cannot be libertarian by definition. And Pinochet was merely better than the alternatives, which is why he wasn't loathed by the West as much as Castro or Chavez.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

he right are not exclusively rich, they are motivated by fairness, not entrenching advantage.

Right, less affluent and less educated working class people are minipulated into voting for the class interests of the rich class.

Others motivated by fairness - I wonder how that plays out. They obviously think people being too poor to access proper health care and education is fair, and others taking on large debts to finish school - as well as paying far more for healthcare than do other countries is fair.

A dictatorship cannot be libertarian by definition.

In a right libertarian economy, most of the people are poor, while a small group gets rich. There needs to be a dictatorship in place to control the poverty.

Modern feminism and the right libertatian movement were started by the same gov fronts.

One throws men under the bus ecomomically and the sister movement shames them and throws them under the bus socially.

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, less affluent and less educated working class people are minipulated into voting for the class interests of the rich class.

Or they agree with right wing political principles. You patronising them for disagreeing with you should tell you something about your own views.

They obviously think people being too poor to access proper health care and education is fair, and others taking on large debts to finish school - as well as paying far more for healthcare than do other countries is fair.

People are by and large responsible for their own choices. In a capitalist society people broadly get what they deserve. The exceptions have a social safety net paid for out of taxes that so long as they aren't too high no one resents too much.

In a right libertarian economy, most of the people are poor, while a small group gets rich.

Your hypothesis is wrong.

Modern feminism and the right libertatian movement were started by the same gov fronts.

Adam Smith?

One throws men under the bus ecomomically and the sister movement shames them and throws them under the bus socially.

Feminism is a fundamentally left wing movement. The MRM is a fundamentally right wing movement. That you experience cognitive dissonance over this doesn't change that this is so.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Or they agree with right wing political principles. You patronising them for disagreeing with you should tell you something about your own views.

They don't have access to the right information. In the UK the working class was flooded with right wing, tabloid news papers and they were responsible for the average person voting right, against their own interests.

Id like to know your definition of fair.

People are by and large responsible for their own choices. In a capitalist society people broadly get what they deserve. The exceptions have a social safety net paid for out of taxes that so long as they aren't too high no one resents too much.

Yeah this is the rich class ideology of personal responsibility. The rich class - a small number 65 people, own hald the worlds resources and wealth. And the message is that poor black man with no resources because these people that hord them should just take personal responsibility.

Adam Smith?

Libertarian and ancap was appropriated fom the left. Right libertarianism is new. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations backed the first right libertarian system and promote social justice and free markets.

Feminism is a fundamentally left wing movement.

Modern feminism is right wing, focusing on elite jobs in politics and corporations.

The MRM is a fundamentally right wing movement. That you experience cognitive dissonance over this doesn't change that this is so.

No the mrm is fundamentally left wing. All the writers and thinkers have been left and the focus is on the men at the bottom.

The right appropriated the talking points and stastics about male disposibility and then use them to argue for more male disposibility.

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]HellstromC1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You're never going to find someone you agree with totally, on everything. Ben Shapiro can do good work

Ummmm, I certainty hope I don't want to commit war crimes against children.....

Your opinions on Israel are dumb as hell.

Again, no war crimes against children? Good enough.

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ummmm, I hope I don't want to commit war crimes against children.....

That is as stupid as Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarianism must be bad.

Shapiro, as I am sure is the case with many others, has some views you will agree with and others you will disagree with. What you appear to be doing is saying that because he has certain views you disagree with his other views cannot represent men's rights.

Aside from the fact that your use of "war crimes against children" is disingenuous and deliberately provocative, it has no bearing on whether what else Shapiro says is true or not. There are good arguments why retaliatory bombing results in the fewest injuries and fatalities as opposed to less impactful measures that are insufficient to disincentivise ongoing conflict escalation. Same goes for forfeiture in the West Bank. Failing to understand the nuance of the situation as you do doesn't yield correct conclusions and such black and white thinking over grey matters breeds ignorance and zealotry rather than pragmatism and solutions.

[–]boringcarpets 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smellslikecolon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smellslikecolon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like anyone, I agree with some things Ben Shapiro says and disagree with others.

For example, I think he's completely wrong when he dismisses universal healthcare. I live in one of the all-other-western-countries-apart-from-the-USA which has universal healthcare and it works very well, we have longer life expectancy than the USA and we spend about 60% less per capita than the USA does on healthcare.

There are a bunch of reasons why we're doing much better than the USA at a lower cost, and I'd happily discuss/debate those points with Ben if the opportunity arose, but this is not the place. Also, I am a business owner and generally very pro freedom/pro capitalism/pro individual achievement & personal responsibility in most things - so I generally agree with Ben whenever he ventures into those topics. But I aim to be rational rather than ideological, so I can look at healthcare objectively and see that our system, which Americans would probably call "socialised healthcare", has some very strong advantages over US-style "corporatised healthcare", thus it's the better approach.

Bottom line is that I can listen to a Ben Shapiro speech and hear him say some things I completely disagree with, but not get triggered by that fact. He's still doing good work despite being very wrong about some things. Can't you take the same view?

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

[–]zulu127 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WildHuntsman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I think that he's been used as a way to gain legitimacy.

He's a prominent figure on the scene of political discourse, and having him agree with your movement can be validating and attention-grabbing.

Many people view thing these times in the Western World as symptoms of a larger culture war, and in a war, having many allies is often a boon. To bring things back to WWII, nations such as The British Empire and the United States of America allied themselves with the Soviet Union in order to combat the Axis powers. The Soviet Union, comiting immense amounts of human-rights violations as well as aggressive expansion, drew the ire of the Western powers. Once the Second World War was over, they became more directly opposed to one another.

Should a day come when the current culture war comes to a close, I hope that individuals such as Mr. Shapiro will have their ideas properly challenged and ridiculed.

Since I've been accused of being one when criticizing and satirizing the actions of Jewish people in the past, I shall stipulate that I am not an anti-Semite. To propose that I am one based on the fact that I simply oppose a Jewish person is, quite frankly, absurd.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildHuntsman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WildHuntsman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinkEyedGayDragon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[+]HellstromC1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

I agree with some of Ben's positions. But the man himself is lower than the lowest. Our grandfathers fought against fascism. And Ben embraces fascism and war crimes against children.

I'm not sure why this should even be controversial.

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

You've been a redditor for 4 days. Are you, perchance, one of the original skelefal/ee4m tag team who keep trying to drag me into their bullshit and who I have asked to stop with the user name mentions? Or are you just "new" here? If so, I'd appreciate it you not summoning me by user name mentions to demand that I disavow this or that person based on how their politics offend you.

Hey, I wonder if your grandfather who fought in WWII knew that more people (including children) died from traditional bombing missions over Tokyo than in the two nuclear blasts (which also killed a lot of children). What a horrible person your grandfather must have been to have fought for the side that killed hundreds if not thousands of kids in a mostly indiscriminate bombing campaign in Dresden. You seem proud of him having fought in that war. Obviously you're proud that he was part of a military that intentionally killed children.

You see how that works? Your grandpa is literally a baby killer, and you support killing babies because you're proud that he fought in that war where all those babies were killed. Disgusting.

Now, if you have any questions about things I have said myself or any positions I myself hold, feel free to ask. But you can cut out this bullshit of dragging me into useless conversations with demands that I answer for things others have said right now.

[–]HellstromC[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

There is a fundamental difference, and you'd realize this if you had spent a few minutes studying the Israel/Palestine conflict. If you had for example read a non-far-right-wing source on the struggle eg the work of Chomsky, or Blum, or The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe.

When you celebrate someone who advocates war crimes and ethnic cleansing -- in this case Ben Shapiro -- you reflect on all MRA's. It's not entirely fair but that's the way it is. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but you should also expect to be challenged on said opinions.

While Palestinians are being slaughtered, you arrogantly chime in like an empress woken from her sleep. How dare this pleb wake me from my slumber?

Well, Karen, Palestinian children die while you sleep.

My grandfather fought against fascism. I have no problem celebrating his sacrifice, because it was the right thing to do. I also acknowledge that during his bombing missions he almost certainly killed innocent civilians, including children.

The allies created something called the "Geneva Conventions" after the war precisely to mitigate or hopefully eliminate potential future slaughters of civilian populations.

Ben Shapiro loudly condemns the Geneva Conventions. He lusts after the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. And to the extent that you support him, you are complicit.

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

You link to that piece of shit on your Twitter. If I linked to Ted Bundy on my Twitter I wouldn't act surprised if someone called me out.

Melodrama.

Believe it or not I highly respect you, which is why I'm "pestering" you on this particular matter. I have friends in Palestine.

Yes, this is what they always say. "I'm only being a raging cunt because I respect you." I don't care that you have friends in Palestine. I could as easily say, "I have friends in Israel" (which I do) who get to watch CCTV footage of random Israelis being stabbed on the streets of Jerusalem by Palestinians on the evening news, and who have bomb shelters in every building. I'm sure they'd like me to take a side, too.

Ok, now you're just being obtuse. You're arguably the most famous MRA in the world. Which is why it's so depressing when you invariably take the far right position on every position.

Don't care. I take the position I see as sensible. If I find myself unable to take the left position on anything important, perhaps you leftists should start being more sensible. Bitching and moaning that I don't agree with you on certain matters and complaining that I'm "far right" isn't going to get you anywhere. Are you arguing that I should engage in diversity politics for the sake of equity? That I should make sure my positions are equally distributed across the political spectrum just for the sake of pandering to the left? Grow the fuck up.

And all of that said:

I have no official position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You point to a Tweet Shapiro made back in 2012 supporting cluster bombing of Palestine. Even if I disapproved (which I don't know that I do, since I don't know enough about it), well, I'm sorry but that's not in my fucking bailiwick. I will continue to support Shapiro when he's talking sense. If and when the day comes that you and your little clique of hard left whiners here in r/mensrights start talking sense, I'll be happy to Tweet it.

Edited to add: I do not include DavidByron among you. He is at least capable of being reasonable, thoughtful, insightful and not a dickbag. I quite enjoy talking to him when it happens.

[–]HellstromC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

who get to watch CCTV footage of random Israelis being stabbed on the streets of Jerusalem

Click it. Go on, click it.

https://occupiedpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg

Do you have the balls to watch this film? By the award winning journalist John Pilger? In order to see the other side of the debate?

I highly doubt it. And no I'm not just engaging in reverse psychology: I honestly don't think you have the balls to watch something that would fundamentally challenge your worldview. You're too busy watching Ben Shapiro on Youtube.

When you've actually studied the history of Israel/Palestine, people like yourself who (unwittingly?) support ethnic cleansing come off as grotesque figures. But I don't blame you, honestly I don't. The media has fed you a certain line for your entire life. I DO have a certain amount of contempt for your ilk, because honestly you should know better.

As for Ben Shapiro, well I would hope that arguing for war crimes is beyond the pale. Evidently it isn't.

If I find myself unable to take the left position on anything important

Unfortunately that just demonstrates that you're an ideologue. Immature. Simplistic.

Certainly many (sensible) figures on the right realize that the entire left half of the equation isn't futile.

As someone who tends more toward the left I realize the same of the right.

And people with integrity don't slavishly follow ideology.

I'm "leftist" on economic matters but I support gun rights and I find abortion extremely disturbing.

Grow up Karen.

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Do you have the balls to watch this film? By the award winning journalist John Pilger? In order to see the other side of the debate?

I have told you that I refuse to pick a side here. Not my bailiwick. Your answer is to dare me to pick a side.

I honestly don't think you have the balls to watch something that would fundamentally challenge your worldview. You're too busy watching Ben Shapiro on Youtube.

I watch him when he's talking sense. You know, about SJWs in the context of North America.

When you've actually studied the history of Israel/Palestine, people like yourself who (unwittingly?) support ethnic cleansing come off as grotesque figures.

Yes yes, I publicly agree with Ben Shapiro's comments about Trigglypuff and how single motherhood is less than ideal and how entrenched poverty can be avoided by finishing high school and not having kids until you're married, therefore I support ethnic cleansing.

I keep telling you, I am not interested in Israel/Palestine. Not my motherfucking bailiwick. I take no position. I don't want to take a position. Why are you asking "the most famous MRA in the world" to take a position on something extraneous to men's rights that will, no matter what position I take, alienate massive numbers of people from listening to my men's rights message? What the everloving fuck is wrong with you?

I DO have a certain amount of contempt for your ilk, because honestly you should know better.

Coming from you and given your comments here under this post, I have a hard time not taking that as a compliment. The contempt of idiots and hypocrites is like a warm blanket to me.

As someone who tends more toward the left I realize the same of the right.

I don't even think you know what the right is.

I'm "leftist" on economic matters but I support gun rights and I find abortion extremely disturbing.

Are you so foolish that you don't realize there are leftist arguments for gun rights and against abortion? Do you even know what you stand for? Or is your political viewpoint just a list of check boxes to tick?

[–]HellstromC[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I have told you that I refuse to pick a side here. Not my bailiwick.

Um, are you aware that the Canadian government DOES take a stance on this issue via your tax dollars? Are you dumb? No, you're just playing dumb, so as to avoid responsibility. You've already taken a side, you just don't realize it.

Yes yes, I publicly agree with Ben Shapiro's comments about Trigglypuff

Me too! It's just that I disagree with Ben Shapiro about committing war crimes against civilian populations. Supposedly our grandfathers fought against that sort of stuff.

I don't want to take a position

That is the position of...a coward.

The contempt of idiots and hypocrites is like a warm blanket to me.

And yet you feel a niggling doubt...that you yourself are a hypocrite. Case in point: you didn't even bother to watch the film I linked by John Pilger. It wasn't even long. What's the matter? Scared you would have to challenge your beliefs?

I don't even think you know what the right is.

I know exactly what the right is. In a few cases they are correct (gun rights, for example). But mostly it's a front to rob poor people.

there are leftist arguments for gun rights and against abortion?

Yes I'm aware of that. I was trying to reach out to you and find common ground.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Um, are you aware that the Canadian government DOES take a stance on this issue via your tax dollars? Are you dumb? No, you're just playing dumb, so as to avoid responsibility. You've already taken a side, you just don't realize it.

"If you're not with us, you're against us." How charmingly tribalistic.

The Canadian government does a LOT of things I don't agree with. I gave a 45 minute presentation on one of them just last week in San Diego, because.... wait for it..... it had something to do with men's rights. You know. It was in my bailiwick. See how that works?

Me too! It's just that I disagree with Ben Shapiro about committing war crimes against civilian populations. Supposedly our grandfathers fought against that sort of stuff.

Really? I thought that in order to agree with anything he says is to support everything he says. You know. I tweet Ben Shapiro when he's talking about Trigglypuff and identity politics in the west, and you claim that by doing so I'm endorsing ethnic cleansing. Because, you know, back in 2012 he tweeted something you claim is support for war crimes. We all need to stop sharing his videos about the topics we agree with him on because he said this one thing once five years ago and therefore sharing his videos on topics where we agree with him is supporting genocide.

You literally just said you agree with him on some things. Are you aware that saying you agree with him on those things means you too support genocide and war crimes?

And yet you feel a niggling doubt...that you yourself are a hypocrite. Case in point: you didn't even bother to watch the film I linked by John Pilger. It wasn't even long. What's the matter? Scared you would have to challenge your beliefs?

I do not feel any niggling doubt. Why didn't I bother to watch the film you linked? WHAT PART OF "NOT IN MY BAILIWICK" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? I am interested in the psychology of how we view men and women, and in the psychology of tribalism (you're the poster boy for the second thing, by the way), and I have zero beliefs regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to be challenged. I want to keep it that way, because all me taking a position, no matter which position I take, will do is interfere with my ability to effectively advocate for men and boys.

I know exactly what the right is. In a few cases they are correct (gun rights, for example). But mostly it's a front to rob poor people.

Yes, I know that's what you think. And you're as correct about that as Mother Jones is about the MRM. Mostly, we're a front to legalize rape and domestic violence, yo.

Yes I'm aware of that. I was trying to reach out to you and find common ground.

No you weren't. Do you even know my position on gun rights? I mean, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, because I don't advertise it, because it's NOT IN MY MOTHERFUCKING BAILIWICK. You just assumed I take the right wing position on that because I apparently take the far right position on everything. You know, except when I refuse to take a position, which means I'm still hard right but also a hypocrite.

I'm a men's rights advocate. The day the US government decides that women can own guns but men can't, I'll take a fucking position on gun rights. That position will be that guns should be equally accessible or inaccessible to both men and women.

You fucking cunt. Stop trying to sabotage my work. Stop trying to pull me into every goddamn leftist cause du jour and convince me to fuck up every fucking thing I'm trying to accomplish. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[–]HellstromC-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You want to wash your hands of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. That's fine. But don't EVER pretend that you have some sort of sense of ethics. Because we're talking about ethnic cleansing and slaughter and naked power against defenseless people. We're talking about snipers picking off sixteen year old girls on the way to school. You claim to be neutral, yet you support people like Ben Shapiro. Shapiro openly supports ethnic cleansing and war crimes. I would slap him upside the head if I saw him.

Do you remember when Hillary forgot to take responsibility for her monumental failure? Well that's you right now. There's no harm in saying "I'm sorry." Saying "I'm sorry" goes a long way. The key to responsibility is shame.

Mother Jones is about the MRM.

Mother Jones rejected both capitalism and feminism. She argued that if women were to "go to work" they would end up as wage slaves. She rejected feminism, while being one of the most kickass women in American history. She rejected capitalism, because it turned both men and women into slaves.

She would have regarded you as a patsy, because you support wage slavery for both women and men.

Do you even know my position on gun rights?

I'm pretty sure I do. You support gun rights. Ak-47's? Well I'm not sure. I happen to support the right of men and women to own and shoot even automatic weapons.

I'm a men's rights advocate.

You are. You're possibly the best men's rights advocate. I'm not trying to "sabotage" your work. I want you to succeed.

The problem is that as soon as you go up against someone like Chomsky you'll be slaughtered. Because on many issues you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm trying to help.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The key to responsibility is shame.

And here is where I know you are not an advocate for men, or any kind of ally to the men's movement.

Mother Jones rejected both capitalism and feminism. She argued that if women were to "go to work" they would end up as wage slaves. She rejected feminism, while being one of the most kickass women in American history. She rejected capitalism, because it turned both men and women into slaves.

You know I'm talking about the magazine and not the magazine's namesake.

She would have regarded you as a patsy, because you support wage slavery for both women and men.

I don't care. People are entitled to think whatever they like about me. But I do think it's somewhat presumptuous of you to speak for Mary Harris Jones when she's not here to speak for herself.

I'm pretty sure I do. You support gun rights.

Really. You know this. I oppose Canada's long gun registry, because it's a massive waste of money and long guns in Canada are almost entirely used for hunting and wild animal control (I lived in a community where bears are still out on the sidewalk at 7:45AM). Handguns and shotguns are pretty hard to get here. I'm not necessarily annoyed about that.

I'm not trying to "sabotage" your work. I want you to succeed.

So long as I maintain ideological purity. Yeah, I get it. You don't want me to win for men. You want me to win for the left. No thanks.

The problem is that as soon as you go up against someone like Chomsky you'll be slaughtered.

That's actually pretty funny. Why would I go up against Chomsky? Is he a feminist? Is he an MRA? In what universe would he ever be in a debate against me?

Because on many issues you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Like what? Like Israel/Palestine, where I've taken no position and said I am not interested in commenting on it? THOSE kinds of issues where I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about? You know, where I say, "no, I'm not touching that poop"?

I'm trying to help.

No. You're not.

[–]HellstromC0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And here is where I know you are not an advocate for men, or any kind of ally to the men's movement.

???

I support every single men's rights measure. I am an anti-feminist.

Shame is a useful emotion. Or did you think it came out of nowhere?

Example: a monkey steels a piece of fruit, more than he or she is entitled to. That's shameful.

You think that's a minor thing. But when you get people stealing millions of pieces of fruit, it becomes an issue.

According to Zoologist Richard Conniff:

"In fact no other primate on Earth practices anything remotely like hoarding. Monkeys and apes in the wild may occasionally try to hide some choice morsel or stuff it down before anyone else notices. But it's bad form, old chap. Seeds and fruit, their usual diet, are generally abundant and widely distributed. Even when chimpanzees hunt meat, at considerable risk to the hunters' own well-being, the successful hunters typically let out a distinctive call to attract other chimpanzees. The hunters bring their catch to the ground, where a feeding cluster forms, with other chimps all around them begging and whimpering for scraps."

I do think it's somewhat presumptuous of you to speak for Mary Harris Jones

She was pretty clear. She rejected both feminism and capitalism. Let me take a wild guess: you haven't read any of her writings?

Really. You know this.

Was I wrong? You support gun rights. I support hardcore gun rights. If a man wants to own an automatic weapon he should be entitled to do so.

So long as I maintain ideological purity.

If "ideological purity" means supporting the Genova Conventions then yes. War crimes are NOT acceptable, even if you have a bizarre infatuation with the man-child Shapiro. If I encountered that little prick in the wild I would smack him around.

Why would I go up against Chomsky

Because I respect you, and I think it would be awesome. Unfortunately Noam no longer does debates, according to our recent correspondence.

I think Noam would probably agree with you on more matters than you think. Especially the free speech stuff. But he would naturally dispute your bizarre claim that capitalism is helpful to women. Capitalism isn't helpful to anyone.

No. You're not.

Yes. Yes I am. :)

Believe it or not, I really do support your work.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

???

Yeah, why don't you actually think about that. You literally said the key to responsibility is shame. Because men don't live in a culture that shames them enough. Why don't we heap more on? It's the key to responsibility, after all.

Shame is a useful emotion. Or did you think it came out of nowhere? Example: a monkey steels a piece of fruit, more than he or she is entitled to. That's shameful.

Guilt is a useful emotion for individuals. Guilt is what you feel when you wrong someone. Guilt leaves room for repentance and moving forward because it targets the action. Guilt is based on empathy and theory of mind.

Shame is only useful insofar as it drives nonconforming individuals from the group or forces them back in line with the group consensus. Shame targets the self. It's not based on empathy, it's based on disgust. Disgust-based morality leads to all kinds of horrors. Just so you know what you're advocating here.

"In fact no other primate on Earth practices anything remotely like hoarding. Monkeys and apes in the wild may occasionally try to hide some choice morsel or stuff it down before anyone else notices. But it's bad form, old chap. Seeds and fruit, their usual diet, are generally abundant and widely distributed. Even when chimpanzees hunt meat, at considerable risk to the hunters' own well-being, the successful hunters typically let out a distinctive call to attract other chimpanzees. The hunters bring their catch to the ground, where a feeding cluster forms, with other chimps all around them begging and whimpering for scraps."

In fact, no other male primate on earth lets other guys have a shot at passing on their genes. The pure tournament species like gorillas have 5% of the males siring almost all the offspring. The group tournament species like chimps and baboons have ~20% of the males siring almost all the offspring. The monogamous species have a single dominant male in the group siring all the offspring and policing all the other group members, male or female, from mating. In those species, a subordinate male having sex is seen as bad form old chap. Sure, all the mothers are single mothers, and there's virtually no investment by fathers in offspring, but vagina exists in plenty and certain males hoard it like gold.

Oh my goodness. Wouldn't you know it. It's almost like humans are different from other primates. Might be why we're not on the edge of extinction. Why don't you go live with the chimps? Apparently you like the way they do things.

She was pretty clear. She rejected both feminism and capitalism. Let me take a wild guess: you haven't read any of her writings?

I'm not the one who brought her into the conversation. I brought the leftist magazine named after her into the conversation. Regardless, I know enough about her to know that she rejected the suffragettes and fought for workers' rights.

I have no idea why you think I would not know this? Or why you would think her position on feminism necessarily validates her position on capitalism. I can admire Sylvia Pankhurst for abandoning the suffragette movement over her sister and mother's position on war and the draft without deciding that this position made her right about socialism.

Was I wrong? You support gun rights. I support hardcore gun rights. If a man wants to own an automatic weapon he should be entitled to do so.

I do? Huh. Who knew? Not you, because I've never taken an official stance, other than objecting to the Canadian long gun registry for pragmatic reasons. I'd rather live in a society without guns. I understand the standard arguments for gun rights in the US, and I feel it has merit. I understand the surrounding context, which is vastly different from the context here in Canada, where we didn't have to drive the British out at gunpoint. I also acknowledge that preventing people from getting guns is a lot less complicated than taking guns away from people who already have them. And I completely get the argument that gun control and convoluted gun registries only punish and inconvenience the law abiding, while criminals will generally do what they want and get guns despite legislation designed to stop them.

On the other hand, I live happily in a country with fairly strict gun control and not many guns and I like it that way.

See, here's the thing. There are lots of questions that have correct answers. You know, 2 plus 2 equals X, where there's a correct answer, and all the others are incorrect. Things like gun rights, the death penalty, etc, aren't those kinds of questions.

Understanding the arguments and seeing there's merit in them is not the same thing as agreeing on a position. You assumed I'm right wing and therefore support gun rights. The reality is, I don't care about gun rights enough to take any position whatsoever. I've been living 46 years with what you Americans would consider zero gun rights. To date, I don't miss those rights. Maybe one day I will, but for now I'm fine living in a mostly gun-free society.

If "ideological purity" means supporting the Genova Conventions then yes. War crimes are NOT acceptable, even if you have a bizarre infatuation with the man-child Shapiro. If I encountered that little prick in the wild I would smack him around.

You keep saying that if you ever passed him on the street you'd assault him. Do you think this reflects well on you?

Regardless, to my knowledge, you still haven't even linked to his comment or the surrounding context.

I think Noam would probably agree with you on more matters than you think. Especially the free speech stuff. But he would naturally dispute your bizarre claim that capitalism is helpful to women. Capitalism isn't helpful to anyone.

Well no duh. He's a socialist. He doesn't think capitalism is helpful to anyone. Could you please link to where I said capitalism was helpful to women? I'd like to understand the full context.

Believe it or not, I really do support your work.

Please stop. I'd rather not be associated with people who threaten others with violence for their political opinions.

[–]HellstromC1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Shame targets the self. It's not based on empathy, it's based on disgust.

In truth the line between guilt and shame is exceedingly thin. I'll concede that psychologists make a distinction.

Shame:

the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another.

When a billionaire flaunts his wealth or a women her beauty we call it shameless. Shame is a useful emotion for a social species. That's basically all I was saying.

I think I understand why you find the emotion of shame so offensive. You're a capitalist, and you have no problem with the fact that a few men own half of the world's wealth. The goddamn pharaohs of ancient Egypt would have had a difficult time justifying such a shameless obscenity, but somehow capitalists make it work.

It's almost like humans are different from other primates.

Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to justify wealth hoarding? One person has a thousand times more than he can eat while a child starves to death? You think that just or fair or inevitable? It's none of those things.

I'm reminded here of the anarchist Johan Most's brilliant polemic "The Beast of Property", where he wrote:

"If the poor man, who is momentarily unable to sell himself to an exploiter of labor, or is already flayed to complete helplessness by the “beast of property,” has recourse to begging – then the glutted bourgeois terms it “vagrancy,” and calls for police; he demands pillory and prison for the poor devil who refuses to starve between mountains of food."

You frequently make reference to chimps when discussing human behavior. I'm merely pointing out that even chimps have a sense of "basic chimpanzee decency."

So called primitive societies do not allow people to hoard wealth while others starve.

she rejected the suffragettes and fought for workers' rights.

She did. She was a remarkable woman, and unlike today's feminists understood clearly that work is not necessarily freeing and is usually the opposite. Her father was a coal minor.

She recognized, as did GK Chesterton during the same time period, that domestic life (for all its frequent annoyances) is preferable to wage slavery. "Work" for most women then consisted of brutal toil in factories. Same as men. Today, most women have replaced a loving husband with an asshole boss, and a charming home with a corporate cubicle.

Since we're on the topic, I wonder if you're aware that childless women are much more likely to get cancer? I haven't heard you discuss that. I find that fact intriguing.

I do? Huh. Who knew?

lol. Apologies for putting words in your mouth. You can understand my leaping to that conclusion since you seem to embrace a far right wing position on most issues.

You keep saying that if you ever passed him on the street you'd assault him. Do you think this reflects well on you?

Yes I think it does. I think it would reflect badly on me if I suggested he be tortured, for example, which is what my emotions suggest he deserves. A slap upside the head is not that big a deal.

Could you please link to where I said capitalism was helpful to women?

Again, I simply assumed that since you support capitalism you think it is helpful to both men and women? Warren Farrell argued that you can't harm one sex without harming the other, and I agree with that.

Please stop. I'd rather not be associated with people who threaten others with violence for their political opinions.

Oh please. Suggesting that someone deserves to be pimp slapped is hardly equivalent to advocating war crimes against children (a la Ben Shapiro). Although no doubt you'll attempt to argue as much.

I find it interesting that you are so offended at my criticism that you spit on my olive branch. Not a very nice way of treating a fan ;)

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to justify wealth hoarding?

God, you're annoying. If you don't want an argument to be addressed, don't make it. Yes, humans do some things other primates don't. Saying that "no other primate does X" is not an argument against X. Other primates engage in war and genocidal violence. Is that an argument in favor of humans doing those things?

You frequently make reference to chimps when discussing human behavior. I'm merely pointing out that even chimps have a sense of "basic chimpanzee decency."

Yes, I do. When you're trying to figure out what set of conditions and pressures made us humans and not chimps you kinda need to look at chimps.

You want to know some possible reasons why chimps don't hoard wealth? Maybe it's because they have a less evolved sense of future. Maybe it's because they don't construct permanent (or even semi-permanent) dwellings, so ownership of things is not really a concept in their brains. Maybe it's because they don't engage in paternal investment in offspring--when the secret to getting laid is simply chasing the other males away, with violence if necessary, there's no need to accumulate resources, is there?

Your thoughts on pharaohs of Egypt being more ashamed of hoarding or flaunting their wealth are... quite interesting, given that part of the wealth/property they hoarded was people. You know, slaves. How egalitarian. And then there's that whole getting those slaves to "build a tomb worthy of housing my spirit" thing, and then being buried with more wealth than the average person would even be able to dream of--you know, if that ain't a gross display of wealth hoarding, I don't know what is.

Now I'm almost positive you'd be happier with the egalitarianism of hunter gatherer societies, but that comes with a lifestyle cost. If you want, why don't you go do it? There are still a handful of places where people live that way. No one hoards wealth because there's none to hoard. Problem solved.

lol. Apologies for putting words in your mouth.

Don't be sorry. It's all you seem to be good at.

You can understand my leaping to that conclusion since you seem to embrace a far right wing position on most issues.

As I said, there are leftist arguments in favor of gun rights. The idea that supporting gun rights is necessarily a rightist position betrays a woeful lack of nuance.

Yes I think it does.

No one ever said you were self aware.

I think it would reflect badly on me if I suggested he be tortured, for example, which is what my emotions suggest he deserves. A slap upside the head is not that big a deal.

Sure. Advocating violence is never a big deal until it is.

Again, I simply assumed that since you support capitalism you think it is helpful to both men and women? Warren Farrell argued that you can't harm one sex without harming the other, and I agree with that.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions.

I find it interesting that you are so offended at my criticism that you spit on my olive branch. Not a very nice way of treating a fan

If you were actually a fan, you'd know better than to suggest that would make me treat you differently than I would anyone else.

[–]skapit0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So called primitive societies do not allow people to hoard wealth while others starve.

You never answered that one, did you? ;)

Even your beloved Chimps at least try.

"Primitive" hunter-gatherer bands have a strong tendency toward trying to help the weak. Call it love.

What does it mean when you oppose helping others? Call it hate. Or worse, indifference.

Call it the Egyptian Pharaohs or the capitalist clowns.

As much as possible -- but no more than that. I guarantee Karen that you would love the book The Mountain People by anthropologist Colin Turnbull.

Turbull's first major work is called The Forest People -- about the Mbuti pygmies of the Ituri rainforest in the Congo. Turnbull lived with them for a few years.

In The Forest People there are some surprises: eg the "noble hunter-gatherers" mocked the animals they killed/ate as they were dying; this was presumed by the anthropologist to be an adaptation: they have to kill so often that they have to separate themselves from the suffering. But who knows. Maybe it was just sadism.

And the idea of spanking a child. Most hunter-gatherers do not spank their children, but the Mbuti did. The mother would give the child a good whack on the ass if he/her got out of line.

What about breasts? Feminists claim breasts are non-sexual. But when the pygmies did their mating dance, the girls with the biggest breasts loved to bounce 'em around.

Still, those tendencies are novel precisely because they are...novel. The feminist Sylvia Federici noted that almost all North American tribes did not hit their children.

Anyway, the IK tribe in Northern Uganda is the counterpart to Turnbull's study of the Mbuti. The IK used to be a healthy tribe who raised cattle but were driven off their land when do-gooder liberals in Uganda decided they wanted to create a wildlife park for American tourists.

They descended into complete barbarity. "Black humor" took on a whole new meaning, as the Ik would mock the dying. Kill or be killed. It was Hobbes' dream.

Turnbull lived with them for several years. He began to question the idea of whether a mother truly loves her children, for example, because children were turned out at the age of three and formed mini gangs.

But of course they loved their children. If they didn't they wouldn't have suckled them.

The elderly were also treated badly amongst the Ik tribe. People became so desperate for food that they would eat vomit. It's a really depressing affair, made more so because the author arrogantly recommends at the book's close that the tribe should be split up. He suggests that they have reduced themselves to complete barbarity. Although Turnbull also acknowledged that our capitalist society isn't that different from the Ik -- there's just less vomit.

The most interesting aspect of the book is when the author returns after a season of plenty. Turns out the IK retained the idea of a Hobbesian "war of all against all", which is the fate of your disgusting "libertarian" experiment. Turns out if a culture embraces degeneracy (Me Me Me!) they remain that way.

Reminds one of Maggie Thatcher: "there is no such thing as society" she claimed. Me Me Me!

But of course there is.

Hope you are well, Karen.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So called primitive societies do not allow people to hoard wealth while others starve. You never answered that one, did you? ;) Even your beloved Chimps at least try. "Primitive" hunter-gatherer bands have a strong tendency toward trying to help the weak. Call it love.

Yes. You CAN call it love. Because hunter-gatherer bands like the Mbuti generally live in groups we would consider to be "very, very, very small towns". In the case of the Mbuti, bands of 15 to 30 individuals. Cheaters and freeriders (whether in the form of status/wealth hoarding or refusing to pull one's weight) can be easily detected in small close-knit groups, and social pressure is more effective in small groups regarding changing people's behavior because everyone knows and depends on everyone else, and everyone knows everyone else's business.

It's the most interesting thing, isn't it, how that way of doing things cannot apply to massive groups of individuals, such as modern cities?

Chimpanzees live in groups that would, again, be considered by us to be "very, very, very small towns". Individuals are interrelated genetically through the male lines of descent. Also, there's no wealth to hoard.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily take Turnbull's observations of the Ik as gospel. Much of it is heavily contested, and some of the criticisms involve him ignoring or not uncovering cultural evidence that the Ik were farmers long before they were displaced, that Turnbull spoke Ik very poorly, and that many of his informants were not Ik.

[–]slkjfldksjfslk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]slkjfldksjfslk0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StrawberrySpringg1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PinkEyedGayDragon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinkEyedGayDragon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinkEyedGayDragon 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't even bother. I know a LOT of the guys who kept the torches lit in the men's movement in the years between Warren Farrell's defection from the NOW and when Paul Elam started his website. Libertarians almost to a man. If you knew some of them, many are massively successful and have devoted a lot of their disposable income to men's issues groups that get things done.

Somehow, the only people who were talking about this shit during that very stagnant time, or doing anything at all out in public, were "appropriating" a movement.

ee4m somehow thinks that if we just socialize everything, men are going to get an equitable slice of the pie. The pattern I've seen, all through my investigations of the men's movement and feminism, is that the more money we give government, the more they'll spend on women, creating a feedback loop that contributes to male disposability.

"We have a budget surplus, gentlemen. I suggest we hand it to women, so they don't have to get married if they want kids. Oh, and we could always use some more prisons to house the men who aren't paying their child support."

He has a baby's understanding of human gender dynamics.

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've tangled with him before. If you give him an inch, he'll reply with a wall of barely comprehensible text, and a dozen links to massive articles about how the identitarian left is actually "the neo-liberal hard right" and how Zionism is at the root of all of men's problems or something. To him, everything bad is right wing. By definition.

I'm sick of dealing with it. He and his buddies called me on the carpet for interviewing Chris Cantwell (a self-described racist and white nationalist who was at Charlottesville).

I'm not going to apologize for that. I'm not going to only touch "perfect" people who've never said or done anything to offend him and his friends. You want to understand what's going on, you talk to people, including people whose views you find abhorrent. Perhaps especially those people.

And while you seem to think he cares about unfairness in gender matters, to me he seems to care more about his leftist political allegiances and smearing the right than about men and boys. "OMG, she keeps going on Steven Crowder! She's pandering to the right!" Well, I keep getting invited onto Crowder. Pardon me for wanting to educate the right about men's issues. I've also talked to lots of left-leaning journalists and commentators, and almost without exception, they've twisted my words, smeared and vilified me. His answer to that is that Mother Jones, The New Republic and David Pakman aren't really left. They're actually "hard right neo-liberals", dontcha know. Because, you know, anything that is bad is right wing. By definition.

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've dealt with him too and see him more as a naive dupe than a nasty ideologue. I know what you mean about the links though.

I thought your interview with Chris was really moving. It was obvious that the poor guy had gone too far in terms of race realism for political correctness to ever accept listening to his views and constructively challenging them but I was proud that you did it and how you did it (although for a radio host he did seem to need you to lead the conversation far more than I would have liked). You certainly don't need to apologise for having done it but you know as well as I do that there will always be those who cannot tolerate open discussion of ideas they disagree with. The best way to deal with them is to challenge their closed-mindedness rather than refuse to engage because of how they chose to do so, so long as violence isn't involved (and I include deliberate efforts to disrupt dialogue in that).

Ee4m has been around a while now and whilst it may well be the case that his prioritisation of leftism over equality has meant that he is unfair and unreasonable to you and Ben and others who support equality from the right the fact that he is still here puts him a step above those who smear, misrepresent and outright lie about the right without ever engaging in anything more than tokenism.

As an aside, I can't help but read your comments hearing your accent and that makes me smile! I sort of sound like a cross between Charles Dance and Colin Firth if that helps return the favour.

[–]HellstromC0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We don't know what happens under socialism because all socialist countries are targeted with trade blockaids, sanctions and economic sabotage

Perhaps you don't remember the Cold War?

If they had been allowed to undercut capitalist countries with their resources, allowed modernize as easily as capitalist countries and import what they needed during natural famines the outcomes would have been diffferent.

They were free to do whatever they wished. The innate nature of socialism is so authoritarian though that it inevitably became protectionist rather than free trade, even with other socialist states.

As for free market capitalism / right libertarianism - America and UK 1800s 80% in poverty.

1800s? Please tell me that is a bad joke and you don't really think that is relevant to our discussion?

Chilian Dictatorship, most people living in poverty

A dictatorship is by definition the antithesis of laissez-faire.

Hongkong - more than half living on poverty.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2095117/how-many-hongkongers-are-really-living-poverty

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Perhaps you don't remember the Cold War?

yeah, sanctions, trade blockades etc.

They were free to do whatever they wished.

No they were all targeted with sanctions, embargoes, destabilization etc.

Read confessions of an economic hit man, any country that is not compliment is targeted.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201511121029956744-holodomor-hoax-ussr-ukraine-starikov/

The innate nature of socialism is so authoritarian though that it inevitably became protectionist rather than free trade, even with other socialist states.

All countries are protectionist. Only the stupid and corrupt ones put all their national resources up for sale on the open private market. And socialism isn't inately authoratarian, the free market movement co-opted socialist terms like libertarian and anarchy for the right libertarian movement.

A dictatorship is by definition the antithesis of laissez-faire.

Right libertarianism needs a dictatorship, to control the poverty.

1800s? Please tell me that is a bad joke and you don't really think that is relevant to our discussion?

Please dont tell me you dont understand that the right libertarian movement is a resurgence of an older system that the labour market rejected on account of the poverty.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2095117/how-many-hongkongers-are-really-living-poverty

And you add the people below the poverty line, to the "working poor" and you have more than half the people in poverty.

[–]DevilishRogue1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

yeah, sanctions, trade blockades etc.

Not between the socialist states.

Read confessions of an economic hit man, any country that is not compliment is targeted.

You say that as if you haven't even considered the possibility that this was a two way street.

All countries are protectionist. Only the stupid and corrupt ones put all their national resources up for sale on the open private market.

No and no. Protectionism leaves special interest groups better off but everyone else worse off. It is a hallmark of socialist states. Free trading states have higher standards of living because they can market their goods more freely and buy other states goods more freely, reducing the cost of doing so.

And socialism isn't inately authoratarian, the free market movement co-opted socialist terms like libertarian and anarchy for the right libertarian movement.

I get that you've thrown your hat in the ring with socialism and so don't want to see it as authoritarian, but it is. Everywhere it has been tried the result is the same.

Right libertarianism needs a dictatorship, to control the poverty.

Aside from the fact that there is less poverty in a laissez-faire capitalist state than any other type of state, as already stated it cannot be libertarian if it is a dictatorship as the two are opposites.

Please dont tell me you dont understand that the right libertarian movement is a resurgence of an older system that the labour market rejected on account of the poverty.

I definitely don't understand that because it isn't true.

And you add the people below the poverty line, to the "working poor" and you have more than half the people in poverty.

Relative poverty? If relative poverty gets you all the trappings of a comfortable lifestyle then can it meaningfully be called poverty?

[–]HellstromC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]foot_kisser 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellstromC[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Ben Shapiro is not a role model
Author	HellstromC
Upvotes	0
Comments	133
Date	September 20, 2017 5:02 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/718vvl/ben_shapiro_is_not_a_role_model/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ben-shapiro-is-not-a-role-model.914121 https://theredarchive.com/post/914121

Comments