~ archived since 2018 ~

Bleeding Sweden: the fall into ideological depravity

avoiceformen

November 27, 2011

16 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/bleeding-sweden-the-fall-into-ideological-depravity/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Bleeding Sweden: the fall into ideological depravity
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	16
Comments	24
Date	November 27, 2011 6:06 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/mqmff/bleeding_sweden_the_fall_into_ideological/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bleeding-sweden-the-fall-into-ideological.1031257 https://theredarchive.com/post/1031257

Comments

[–]CVTHIZZKID 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpanishGuy 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpanishGuy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Here you have:

That doesn't really prove anything. In fact, the Swedish Broadcasting Commission only found it to be biased. That in itself only means that it can't be broadcaster on TV. The fact that the author can't even get the name of the agency right is not a good sign. The fact that he (I assume) used a more inflammatory name is a even worse sign.

And no, I've never been in Sweden (your country, I guess). I don't need to. C'mon, don't be so naive, kid.

That's pretty rich coming from you. I would think you would be interested in the truth, and I have a hard time understanding why you would seek out the most fringe sources you can find. Obscurity doest not mean it's more reliable, so I can only assume that this is a case of selection bias. Either that or a fundamental lack of source criticism, coupled with extreme unluck to stumble over the most extreme sources.

In the end you're obviously free to believe what you want, but until you exercise even a little source criticism, it would be good if you stopped calling others "naive".

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

[–]Bragzor -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because I wanted you to tell me exactly what you've told me.

I told you that I had a hard time believing it so you find a fringe source to tell me the same? That makes no sense.

Now, I hope you find the wikipedia less "obscure":

I do, which is why that's the first place I looked. If you read it you'll find that the blog you cited before is nothing more than sensational storytelling with a axe to grind... mostly. Some of the individuals were being a bit over the top, but that was addressed, and is in no was symptomatic. Your statements in your first post were extremely exaggerated and showed a deep ignorance on the subject.

See the documentary and believe whatever you want to believe.

How can I do that when it's "forbidden in Sweden"? You didn't think that through, did you?

I told you "don't be so naive" because it seems like if you ignored how many people are blogging from inside of almost any country.

Yes, people are blogging from within many countries. That does not mean they're right. The things with blogs are that you have no legal obligation to stand behind your statements. You can say whatever you like and no one can do anything about it. Once you publicise it (like the documentary) you're responsible for what you're saying. Again, source criticism, look into it.

[–]SpanishGuy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A), Calling me "kiddo" and insinuating that I'm a troll are both ad hominems and have no place here. They are also both patently wrong.

B) History-mining is a childish way of handling having the truth contradicting your beliefs.

And to the actual reply.

I never pretended not to understand you. I just pointed out that your sources are weak and got a lot of things wrong. I therefore suggested that you exercise some source criticism. Apparently this is trolling in your world, and for this I'm sorry... for you. I'm also neither young (almost 30) nor very patriotic. I do however have almost 30 years of experience on you of living here, and a number of years on at least most your sources. I'm also not biased, which apparently you are since you have no qualms trusting a source that has been deemed biased itself. You have really not contributed in the discussion in that you have refused to accept any alternative opinions whatsoever. I can see why you would consider it a pseudo-conversation given this fact. I'm glad it's over too btw. Hitting my head against a wall is not something I enjoy. Have a happy life. I have no doubt you will have.

[–]fogu -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aww, man! We had such a nice snappy back-and-forth, and you had to go ruin it by becoming upset.

LOL, the fiction here is the illusion you are trying to create that you actually have a point to make.

That's no illusion. You might be referring to my argumentation, which has been lacking. You see, I've come to realise that there's no point in arguing with people who are unwilling to reconsider their standing.

You haven't substantiated a single thing. Nothing. You merely called the article "fiction" as though your utterance of that made it so.

It was an exaggeration ofc, but it is mostly sensational and does leave a lot of contradictory material out.

Like all feminists (or those who conduct themselves as such)

I'm not one, and I don't conduct myself as one. It is perfectly possible to be both not a feminists and still dislike dishonesty.

you imagine that your POV is so unassailable that you don't figure the need to support it with evidence.

Well, I am perfectly free to question the source material, wouldn't you agree? In this case it's pretty obvious that they're drawing conclusions about a whole from a few isolated cases. It also spends a lot of time on a documentary that most independent sources consider flawed and biased.

It is what makes people like you such easy fodder, but ultimately boring and puerile.

Easy how? I'm sure you will have no problem getting your like-minded pals to agree with you, but you will never be able to convince (or do something to me, whatever kind of fodder I now am) with such weak evidence. I guess that's why it's posted here, in the safety of r/mensright, where no one in the great circlejerk-circle would be caught dead challenging such a story.

If you find me "boring", then why don't you do like your pal and chicken out?

The article I linked to was well researched and cited. When you have some sort of refutation of that, feel free to chime in. But since we both know that won't happen, your fiction will serve as the narrative.

Frankly, I don't have the time. If I did I would, and I would look at the sources. Just citing them is not good enough. I already mentioned the documentary, since I happen to know about it, but I'm sure you'll find the rest just as unsubstantiated, and the conclusions just as far-fetched.

Take from this what you want, but at least be honest to yourself.

[–]avoiceformen2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bragzor0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link