New interview with Christina Hoff Sommers detailing how 3rd wave feminism went off the tracks and became the root of rising authoritarianism on the left

[–]Globalization101 90 points91 points92 points 11 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]redsteakraw 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]aliwef 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]knightraine 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Manakel93 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jubba_Gump 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vereonix 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountVonVague 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]zktr 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The calculation is simple enough to do by yourself. The final number depends on two main assumptions.

Years to graduate
Base rate (depends on which years you choose, and which crimes)

Also keep in mind that the base rate has some "noise" from year to year and there is a slower downwards trend. Also the base rates themselves have measurement uncertainties which are tabulated at the end.

Total "1 in 5" number ~= avg base rate (crimes per 1000 women) x number of years in college at the time you are interviewed by the "1 in 5" people

Average years for kids to graduate college is 6 years? Uncertainty 10%? I checked, and it turns out that the "1 in 5" number is just all women on campus at that time. So their mean "exposure" time is half of that, or three years.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/11/ron-johnson/average-college-degree-takes-six-years-us-sen-ron-/

Eyeballing fig 2. the avg rate over recent years looks like about 5 per 1000 for "threatened, attempted, and completed rape and sexual assault." (page 2)." "Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes grabbing or fondling." (page 11.) Call the effective uncertainty due to year to year fluctuations 10% The yearly base rate has an additional uncertainty of 10% as well from the appendix.

Then the total rate is 5x3 per 1000 women = 0.0150(26), where 0.0026 is the total uncertainty in quadrature. i.e. sqrt(3)x10% = 17%. This is 1 in 67(11). i.e. standard error range from 1 in 56 to 1 in 78.

There is no "exact" version of this calculation. The point is, that the true "threatened, attempted, and completed rape and sexual assault" rate is about a factor of TEN smaller than claimed by campus rape hysteriacs.

EDIT: made things prettier.

[–]georgie411 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Globalization101 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]raffastafarian 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]warspite88 39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

2nd wave feminism is not so innocent and sweet with rainbows of equality around it either. 3rd wave feminism IS 2nd wave feminists after teaching the next generation about patriarchy, about how women are oppressed by men, about how unfair life is for women while keeping mum about the struggles men face. spoiled and brainwashed children grow up despising the very ones 2nd wave feminists bashed. Also, once 2nd wave feminists got everything they wanted the 3rd wave are the 2nd wave just wanting MORE!!!, feminists are an unstoppable blind pac man they will not stop until they become extremely corrupt and abusive themselves. human nature is all about money and power and religion/faith. Feminists religion and faith is in women, in anything female, it is their religion, their goddess. as feminists gained more traction in education, media, justice, govt and the money started pouring in from all sources wanting to help women...suddenly feminists exploded with opportunity to take advantage of this new cash and power flow. Thus 3rd wave feminist pushes on like a massive train riding over the man tracks of social misandry and white knights.

christina is a very wise woman and she is seeing more and more how her movement is so corrupt, she genuinely wants to save it, to save face for feminism's definition. But so do alot of rational people that once belonged too or belong to movements that are so unpopular or labelled hate movements by a growing populace.

She would do real women and men a favor by denouncing feminism and starting something new, the world of equality needs a fresh face because the feminist face is a very ugly smelly bastard that no rational person can respect anymore.

I am seeing more and more feminists picking up the cause of mens issues but it doesn't matter because they are doing it because they know more and more people are disgusted with feminism and they know if they dont start showing they pretend to care about men then it just shows how obvious a hate movement it is.

True some feminists do a 180 , denounce feminism yet still care for women while also showing a new understanding of what men go through. But the only ones i trust are those who denounce feminism, not just its disgusting 3rd wave but its very selfish and self righteous 2nd wave that led to disgusting travesties of justice we still have today.

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]daktardoom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditorriot 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditorriot 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]calipersciences 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]zktr 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanYouSaySacrifice 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]zktr 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]zktr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zktr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]a4b 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk4 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]a4b 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk40 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]a4b1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]a4b1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

'Leads to disaster'? You could argue that. But 'ends with a disaster'? That doesn't ring true, because it has never ended. Yes, disasters have happened all the way through, but it is in fact a remarkable testament to the sustainability of capitalism that it has never ended, or even shown any signs of ending.

In any case, I won't deny that capitalism has its downsides, and even that socialism has its upsides. However, gulags, death camps, deliberate starvation of communities, state censorship on a massive scale, etc, etc, are hallmarks of socialism, not capitalism. Lenin and his followers would never have done such things? Possibly. This isn't what Marx had intended? Maybe. But if that's the case, then we should be arguing theory, not statistics. And if we are arguing statistics, then I need a real citation so I can know what I'm arguing against.

[–]zktr 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a4b 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zktr3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Conlaeb 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]zktr -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ninjorp1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zktr -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Klopek 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]just_an_ordinary_guy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TankVet 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkstout 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TankVet 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk4 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]modix 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darkstout 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TankVet 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk4 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smugmeister 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeorgeWashingtonBush 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GeorgeWashingtonBush -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]browhodouknowhere 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]officialbum -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arakin 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smugmeister 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]officialbum -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]murphymc -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]officialbum -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AAKurtz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CornyHoosier 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mariox19 41 points42 points43 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a4b 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Globalization101 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dai_Einon 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazaplaya5 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]mind-strider 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ophites 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazaplaya5 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well the way I think about it is that first wave feminism focused on legal equality (e.g. right to vote), in reality something similar to what #BlackLivesMatter is trying to do (bringing attention to a series of issues only affecting a certain demographic). To be clear first wave feminism was not about creating equality for men and women, but rather to gain certain rights for women (so that they would be treated equitably in they eyes of the law). This was largely accomplished (a long time ago). Now third wave feminism is where it gets interesting (and disgraceful), once first wave feminism was successful many wanted to continue this trend of gaining benefits for women. The theory concocted to support it is centered around the idea that gender/ gender roles are created and explained entirely by social conditioning in our society (which continued by ignorant women and all men). This theory goes against the FACT men and women are different biologically-- they have different tendencies, goals, abilities (physical and mentally) and interests. It is true that society has an impact on perceived gender norms, but to blame all of the (perceived) differences and inequality between the two sexes on men (and even women) is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical.

[–]JoshtheAspie6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And yet things like immunity to the draft continued to favor women. Men remained financially responsible for children, but women gained control over those children. Men remained financially responsible for their wives through alimony, even though the women did not retain their responsibilities toward their husbands after the divorce.

Similarly, the deluth model of domestic violence was enshrined in several levels of federal through local law, both through text (VAWA) and custom of ruling (judicial custom has the force of law).

The movement has always been to gain rights and privileges for women, while shifting more and more responsibilities onto men.

Heck, even traditional discrimination in hiring (currently in the middle east, and traditionally in the west) was due to the fact that men had an obligation to provide for not only themselves, but their female relatives. Socially (but not legally) men were also expected to provide for widows (but not widowers). As such, society quite reasonably had a bias toward hiring those with that responsibility for the purpose of allowing them to benefit the women and children to whom they had obligations.

Now, by law, women are legally favored above men in many ways (affirmative action) but the responsibility is still on the shoulders of the men (be it alimony, child support, or higher taxes on men, which go to defray higher expenditures on women).

This is merely a reflection of feminism's origins, taught as a form of class struggle, with women as the oppressed, and men as the oppressor. While in reality, there were two complementary sexes with distinct roles (natural or constructed), each of whom had both advantages and disadvantages.

I can respect an egalitarian drive to remove constructed sex roles for both sexes at the same time... but that is never what feminism was, despite protestations to the contrary.

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[+]armedburrito -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]armedburrito -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah, 'sure bud.' Is a classic moron response. That's a new one to me. I see we have another contender to the retard throne.

And then we get into the real retard statements. I mentioned something in casual conversation, therefore it's my responsibility to spend my time citing sources, so I can educate morons like yourself. If there ever were a classic moron response on reddit, it's the demand for somebody to cite a source in casual conversation. While we're being idiots and demanding the citation of sources in common conversation, maybe OP should have cited sources when he claimed feminism was a supremacy movement? Oh wait, that's something that fits with your moronic world view, so no sources necessary.

Also, your argument about circumcision is fucking stupid. That's an issue where children don't have rights, not men. Female circumcision is still pretty commonly practiced and significantly more harmful, but you're the one who's oppressed, right?

Nah, you are just a fucking loser looking for someone to blame for your inadequacies. Idiots like you are why the term MRA is used as a derogatory term by the general populace.

[–]MIXEDGREENS2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]forbiddenone 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]forbiddenone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]forbiddenone3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Masahachi 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[+]armedburrito -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Masahachi 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Masahachi4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Masahachi4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Masahachi1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know why it's easy to assume that one movement or another would inevitably result in supremacy. If you think any movement for gender would ultimately result in a supremacy movement, then you must concede that MRA is also subject to the same problems, yes? Equality is something that's been getting better all the time, for everyone, the average cis white man included. Even the poor have far more rights than they used to. In many cases, those rights weren't handed out. They had to be advocated for, in the same way that some people feel the need to advocate for men's rights, today.

The whole idea of forced conscription was created in a different time, and has essentially become moot, given the way conscientious objection works now. Also, let's not get on our high horses about conscription, especially nowadays. Don't pretend like we're making a sacrifice today by signing up for a draft that will probably never happen, given the nature of war, today. If it ever came to blows big enough to require a draft, it would be too fucking late, and even if it did, you can still refuse to fight. What about back then, you say? Look at the nature of war back then. Up until recently, bayonets were a deciding factor in most engagements. Would you want a drafted, malnourished woman, standing next to you in battle? There are a lot of practical reasons that a draft for women wasn't an issue. Nowadays, should women get drafted? Probably, but in an ideal case, I'd say there shouldn't be a draft at all.

Edit: None of which matters, because even if you do feel that a woman should be forced to sign up for a draft, you shouldn't say it's justified to remove her rights until she does so.

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know why it's easy to assume that one movement or another would inevitably result in supremacy.

Is anyone assuming that? They're simply observing that it was the end result (insofar as what is currently happening is an "end").

you must concede that MRA is also subject to the same problems, yes?

I'm 99% certain anyone around here would concede this.

Equality is something that's been getting better all the time, for everyone, the average cis white man included.

I think you're conflating "quality of life" with "equality" here. If that's what you're saying then yeah, it's definitely true. If that's not what you're saying then I'd like to know what. Also, either way, I'd like to know how quality of life has gotten so much better for men as a whole, considering all the back-breaking laborious jobs that are required for the functioning of society still exist, more than likely in greater numbers still...

The whole idea of forced conscription was created in a different time, and has essentially become moot, given the way conscientious objection works now.

I don't see how it's moot if it's still a legal issue. If there were some insane law such as "women are not allowed to carry chocolate in their back pockets on the sabbath" were still in effect, you'd better believe people would be upset that it still existed... and yet that law would almost certainly be much more "moot" in practice than conscription.

Further, conscientious objection... isn't that the process you have to go through, both bureaucratically and physically (i.e. you must show that you've taken part in rallies and shit) to show why it is that you shouldn't have to go to war? This requires that only men be conscientious objectors if they wish not to go to war...

Don't pretend like we're making a sacrifice today by signing up for a draft that will probably never happen, given the nature of war, today.

I don't think that anyone has ever pretended to be making a sacrifice on a personal level. But when you sign up for selective service you are sacrificing something, no matter how unlikely a draft is to occur. Not to say we should all be touting on about having done that like we are noble or something. It's rather to show that there are certain roles the different genders have played historically, and it's possible that there are great reasons for those roles. This answers your question further down:

Would you want a drafted, malnourished woman, standing next to you in battle?

Absolutely not.

you can still refuse to fight.

And if you're a man that refuses, you get sent to a camp or prison. So this still doesn't really negate the issue...

There are a lot of practical reasons that a draft for women wasn't an issue.

I personally feel that it should never be an issue. I don't know how others feel but I honestly feel that selective service should be exclusive to men (at least in the beginnings of some sort of defensive war), but only because it should be a last resort toward defending the country, not as a means to obtain soldiers to go fight some ridiculous concept over in Vietnam or whathaveyou.

but in an ideal case, I'd say there shouldn't be a draft at all.

Yeah, obviously, but in an ideal case I should have a million dollars.

None of which matters, because even if you do feel that a woman should be forced to sign up for a draft, you shouldn't say it's justified to remove her rights until she does so.

Are you removing a man's rights if they are not a citizen of a country and they are not therefore allowed to vote...? But you know what else those who are not citizens of a country don't have to do? They don't have to go to war because rich people told them to.

Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely the case that women should be allowed to vote just the same as any man. But you can't deny that it's somewhat a form of supremacy (as I said earlier) to be able to vote without having to worry about getting drafted.

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

men have never had supremacy over women.

Seriously. If you believe that, there's no point in reasoning with you. When you write long responses that ramble and ultimately make no point, until the end, you're demanding my attention, with absolutely no reason to deserve it. It's quite frustrating. A failed conclusion, based on a false premise, after pages of rambling uselessness. It's a waste of my time, and that is much more offensive to me than words.

Again, supremacy involves domination. There have never been societies where women enslaved men. Men have dominated women, and continue to in some societies, yet you seriously make the assertion that "men have never had supremacy over women." Do you understand how frustrating it would be to talk to somebody who wants to talk about physics, but asserts that god is real and moves the planets?

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow. First, the term we were using was the word "supremacy" not "supremacist". I'm not sure what this fallacy is but you committed it.

Next, in now realizing that you were conflating "supremacist" with "supremacy", I'm going to go ahead and disagree with your issue with the word. You can absolutely say someone is supreme or holds supremacy in one regard and not in another.

Lastly, when you say "treated as property" you make it sound like they were kept in stables and fed hay. There's no way in the fucking world that was ever true. Our society would not be what it is if there weren't women fulfilling the roles that they had with independence from whoever you claim supposedly "owned" them (or treated them like property). Take special note on the "with independence" part. Because women were relied on throughout history for their intelligence and ingenuity, no question about it. They were not en masse treated as slaves, they were not en masse treated as an animal. They were treated as humans, sure, perhaps delicately/tenderly, but only due to... a biological need by males to preserve them.

You clearly have very little to no understanding of the mens rights movement if you actually believe that it could qualify as a supremacist movement. The biggest issues most MRAs take up are ones that would be considered totally valid issues if only those MRAs had vaginas.

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Holy shit, do you honestly think the word supremacy is that far away from supremacist?

I think you can use the term "supremacy" or "supreme" without automatically referring to a form of "Supremacism", yeah. Any half-intelligent person should be able to see that you can.

Treated like property, as in beating your wife was totally legal for a good portion of American history.

And because it was legal, it automatically means that it happened in a large majority of cases.

You keep using that term "philosophy 101" in a derogatory way. I wonder if you actually just finished such a class or something, considering you have the tone and demeanor of an approximately 17 year old human, plus you're unable to distinguish between "supremacy" and "supremacism".

When you base arguments on false premises, like the idea that supremacy and supremacist are different ideas, your conclusions are inherently flawed. It's basic logic.

Wow, definitely 17 years old.

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Any half intelligent person should know that a supremacy movement is the same as being supremacist. I don't try to reason with tumblrina idiots who change the definition of words to suit them, divorced from their actual definition, and I'm not going to try with you.

The fact that it was legal, means that men were protected when treating their women like shit. Sounds like supremacy to me. That's only the stuff that was written down.

I call it philosophy 101, because you have a juvenile perspective on how to go about relaying your points. You get caught up in idiotic, totally impractical aspects of an issue, while circumventing any attempt at acknowledging the big picture. You think trying to do a line by line, out of context rebuttal of points, is somehow going to diminish my argument, while never actually addressing the argument, except when you go on to say silly shit like men haven't historically dominated women, or that supremacy means the gradual acquisition of basic rights, that were already afforded to the people they were supposedly equal to.

I digress, though. Somebody who tries to have a full on debate, while refusing to acknowledge basic facts, is either an idiot, or too immature to have learned those basic facts. If you don't believe that men have dominated women for most of human history, as well as for most of American history, then you are simply uninformed. Grossly uninformed. I'm not gonna try to have an intellectual discussion with somebody who apparently skipped middle school social studies. I'm not interested in talking to somebody who changes the definitions of words, and then makes up some bullshit about context, when they realize the definition isn't suiting their needs. I'm not gonna talk physics with some moron who believes that the planet's motion is determined by the whims of some invisible guy in the sky.

You are the same as a tumblrina, from the opposite side of the spectrum, and people like you are why MRA is used as a slur in common conversation. Your level of stupid is akin to assault.

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Retard who thinks women gaining the right to vote is a form of supremacy,

Quote me where I said this.

asserting that men having the legal right to beat their wives is not indicative of the fact that men have historically dominated women.

It isn't, because it was due purely to a technicality in the language of the laws that a person has "the right to hit their dependents" which women happened to also fall under back then. I guarantee you can find plenty of accounts or cases from 1700s and even back further where men were prosecuted for actually beating their wives. Go ahead, look it up.

Or is it you that is misinformed and refuses to research, opting instead to continually spread said misinformation because you heard it once (and it just so happened to align with your protective instincts toward women (note: you're not the only one that wants to protect women. Both genders throughout all of recorded history have sought to protect and preserve women the best they can)...!)

[–]armedburrito1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yup, still fucking stupid. Men were allowed to hit their dependents, but occasionally, usually under extremely egregious circumstances, they were prosecuted for it. That's not supremacy or dominance, though, because on rare occasions, there were consequences. Totally fucking stupid. You realize that slave owners were occasionally prosecuted for beating their slaves as well, right? But I guess that was just one of the benefits of being a slave master, and as we all know, there were plenty of benefits to being a slave, like free food. So really, slave ownership wasn't a form of supremacy, by your gross misunderstandings of history and sociology.

But you can't deny that it's somewhat a form of supremacy (as I said earlier) to be able to vote without having to worry about getting drafted.

There's your quote, retard. Go back to debating similarly stupid folk. Again, supremacy has an exact definition. I'm sorry you don't understand English.

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not supremacy or dominance, though, because on rare occasions, there were consequences.

This is the exact argument you were using regarding selective service though. You claimed that the fact that there more than likely would never be another draft instated was reason enough to disregard it as a potential form of oppression of men.

And, it is a form of supremacy. You can absolutely use that word in the way that I have there.

But I don't honestly care about that anymore. I'm more interested in your response to what I just pointed out, that is, that you've tried to undermine conscription as a form of oppression of men on the grounds that it's "almost surely irrelevant" or whatever that men still have to conscript, and simultaneously cite a mostly irrelevant technicality in law that allowed for men to "beat their wives as property" which probably only happened in a very small amount of cases, and as a law was almost certainly mostly ignored by judges in domestic cases regarding womens' protection.

Tell me, do you believe that domestic violence by women against men never happened during those days?

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]anticapitalist -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I don't think you have a fair understanding of what capitalism is. Capitalism is not some vaguespeak about freedom- it's a specific violently enforced property system where the capitalist class owns the means of production to exploit workers.

If that exists, plus welfare, that's a capitalist welfare state.

eg, Europe.

Your news, teachers, etc all say that's "socialism" because they've been taught to regurgitate such. It's not what historic socialists said.

Actually historic socialists (eg Proudhon, Orwell, etc) advocated workers (not the state) owning their means of production. Communists (eg Marx, Lenin, Engels, etc) believed such statelessness should be achieved by a temporary state used to defeat capitalists.

Engels:

"The state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.”

-- marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

Lenin:

"The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'"

-- marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4

[–]MasterGoshinki 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Seems to me you just contradicted yourself. Look at the definition you gave me here and contrast it with your op which I responded to...

And yes I do understand capitalism. It's an economic system that I'd based on high production and cheaper prices which is why the guild system fell apart, and the manufacturing middle class as well. This also leads to the creation of two classes bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx 2). Your example; and the system in the US is not capitalist or atleast not pure capitalist by any means. We have a middle class for example. We have goods that aren't just bought and sold at the cheapest price because of said middle class purchasing power and even lower classes purchasing power. We have no proletarians in the US anymore because our system is not capitalist. Therefore neither party is truly for pure capitalism

Source: communist manifesto

Edit: so by the "communist" definition of capitalism. We are not capitalist

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Incorrect. You haven't argued how.

I argued exactly how. You just have to look at your writing yourself. I'm on phone and its difficult for me to format everything the way I would like. However, in your op you said something like; both parties are right winged capitalists even though the left aims for increasing ownership of the means of production. Then in your definition of capitalism you said it is the concept is constructed by the owners of the means of production vs everyone else. So, by your own admission you say that our left is rather anti capitalist. Not to mention my tons of social programs which aren't capitalist at all.

If your "definition" of capitalism is just talking like a politician, eg "high production" "more good" "less bad" (etc) that's not serious.

I never said any of those words. I broke it down to the mechanics of the economic system and what it is based on. The industrial revolution gave rise to a higher availability of goods. This led to a new system based upon selling goods cheaper and cheaper and out competed other economic forms (zola, marx, and plenty others)

Please don't try to interpret the communist manifesto to anyone but yourself, no one else but you is going to have that interpretation.

The same goes for any writings ever. They are absolutely valid for discourse. If you haven't read it or something, that's fine, but it is absolutely a source in a discussion involving capitalism...especially considering your own use of communist writers...those derivations are ok, but arguably the bible on the subject is not? Okay man.

Btw, I'm nqot a Marxist. I never said I was.

I don't recall saying you were. But as I mentioned above, you were using those authors to bring your point across, and I just went one step deeper and took you to the source...more or less

[–]anticapitalist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then in your definition of capitalism you said it is the concept is constructed by the owners of the means of production vs everyone else.

You simply have no idea what I said.

Socialism is about active workers owning their means of production, while most capitalist businesses are based on absentee land ownership, eg, where workers are violently deprived of the land & it's natural resources unless they surrender part of their production to their attacker.

I've explained this a million times, and the only issue is your non-comprehension of it.

The industrial revolution

That != capitalism.

and out competed other economic forms

Wrong. A nation built upon centuries of slavery & genocide (eg of blacks, native americans, etc) is going to be wealthier, plus the slavery of their newer workers. That advantage is not legitimately & voluntarily winning at anything.

you were using those authors to bring your point across,

I was explaining what historically socialists believed. It's sad when I have to repeatedly explain something I said, dumbing it down further & further.

[–]MasterGoshinki2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rsresnor 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, you don't really know much about capitalism if most of what you know you learned from Engels and Lenin. That's like claiming to understand masculinity well because you read some feminist propaganda about it. It's just another pipe dream that on the surface seems would benefit most people, but in reality would mean a massive loss in efficiency without submission to authoritarian rule, putting both ownership of the means of production and authority of law into the same hands (which is what happened every time it was attempted, but blame often gets placed on the ~~patriarchy~~ "capitalists" by those who refuse to see the gaping flaws in the system).

You're just another ideologue trying to pass off your ideology as knowledge under the guise of moral superiority and pseudo-intellectualism. You're what KGB operatives would call a "useful idiot".

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JoshtheAspie 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Capitalism, simply, is a system whereby trade is enabled by the use of some agreed on currency. There is no "capitalist class" and "non-capitalist" class. Rather, every freeman has as a part of that freedom the ability to trade goods and services for currency, and currency for goods and services, and to directly own goods, and the product of the labor they perform on the goods they own.

If you have someone with labor, and someone else with goods with which, and on which, to perform labor, then trade occurs, using currency.

When there is a specific group or class that government officials give special benefits to in exchange for some other kind of favor, this is called "Cronyism", of which one sub-type is "nepotism". Cronyism is usually a corruption of the economic system to which it is attached.

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Capitalism, simply, is a system whereby trade is enabled by the use of some agreed on currency.

That's dishonest. It's like the whole "capitalism is freedom" propaganda. It's not even close to a serious understanding of how the means of production is owned & how that violence leads to people sitting around receiving constant money for ownership. Even a small child who inherits such could sit around "earning" billions. (Note the sarcasm about "earning.")

You're also failing to understand the effects of the capitalist's violence/ownership on workers: The capitalist class violently deprives workers of land & it's natural resources (which workers need to survive) unless workers surrender part of their production to their attacker.

That's violent exploitation. To use violence to take the production of a worker is exploitation. And it's enforced by the capitalist's state & trespassing laws.

Rather, every freeman

"Freeman"... You make me laugh.

This is the whole "free market" mythology you're currently regurgitating. Bravo on the obedience.

In reality, there is no such thing as a "free market" because property opinions are enforced violently (eg trespassing laws) & such is not free to those overpowered.

[–]JoshtheAspie2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

In the U.S. the left is used nearly synonymously with "Liberals/Democrats", while the right is used synonymously with "Conservative/Republicans". In my experience and generally speaking, most people do seem understand that you can be a conservative democrat, but because the two tend to align so greatly in the U.S., it's lead to people using the words as synonyms.

A quote from the wikipedia article on Left-Right Politics reads:

The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning... Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications.

In this case, I think that "the left" was appropriate.

[+]anticapitalist -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]anticapitalist -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

how it's being used [by propagandists]

I think it's much more likely that some people misuse the term because they don't fully understand the difference, than it is for me to believe that all of the people who misuse the term are engaged in a massive conspiracy among tens of millions of people to smear the definition. I'll go with Occam's razor on this one, but you're free to disagree.

Second, even if it was true that doesn't mean that what's popular is true.

eg, in the 70s it was popular to define "gay" as a "mental illness"

As I stated in my previous comment, "English is fluid and changing, and definitions are defined by how people use them". This means that accepted definitions in certain time periods may not be accepted definitions in other time periods. In 1970, homosexuality was legitimately considered to be a mental illness, even though it's no longer considered a mental illness today. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not also a definition. For example, we can look up gay in the dictionary and find that one of the accepted definitions for "Gay" is "Bad".

People who use the term "gay" to mean "bad" are not lying, but they are being offensive. Eventually, we may come to stop accepting "gay" as meaning "bad" and that definition will come to be removed from the dictionary, but for the time being, that is an acceptable definition for the word. Those who use, while offensive, are not lying.

Under your "reasoning" whatever propaganda meanings for words the states advocates (which are practically always the most common) would be valid.

No, you are incorrect, because I never made any claim that a word could not have multiple meanings. Under my rules (which match dictionary rules) any given word may have many definitions and may be used slightly differently in different locations. For example, you might use the word "pub" in reference to a location which serves alcohol, while I might use the word "pub" in reference to a location to store computer code. We can both be using correct definitions of the word, even though we use the word differently in our social circles.

[–]Ali3nation2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't say that.

In this comment you said that my definitions for the words are how they are being used by "Propagandists". Tens of millions of people in the United States use the words the way that I described... I even cited an article supporting me.

And the less popular one (eg the non-propaganda meaning) is not wrong because it's less popular.

None of my comments are edited. I need to explicitly state that I did not ever make any sort of argument to suggest that the above argument is not true.

A cop out. Even in some past times, the "most popular" meaning (eg "gays are sinning devil men") was not correct just because it was the majority's opinion.

In linguistics, being a "fact", and a "definition" are two different things. "Definitions" are how people interpret a word, even if the definition of the word is not "factual". Linguistics is about people's interpretations, not scientific findings. There are words in the dictionary, especially slang words, that mean things that are not scientifically accurate.

Dictionaries only reflect popular usage, they do not make any meaning correct.

Dictionaries reflect meanings of a word that are popular enough to have been submitted to the dictionary and verified as accurately being used in wide enough location that the word may "ripple" out to locations that are not familiar with the word... that's the whole point of a dictionary. My family calls a tissue a "peice", because that's how my little sister used to say it when she was a toddler. We all know that "peice" means tissue in the right context. We can define "piece" as tissue within our family, but it's not like anyone outside of family would know that meaning. It's too unpopular to reasonably need a space in the dictionary.

[–]anticapitalist-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Even if I said what you think (sigh) that is irrelevant.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that when I said "In the U.S. the left is used nearly synonymously with "Liberals/Democrats", while the right is used synonymously with "Conservative/Republicans".", and linked you to the wiki article on the topic, and then you challenged the article, saying that those definitions of the word were "how it's being used [by propagandists]", that you meant that those words were used that way by propagandists.

You know what, I think that I am fine you not believing me about such a normal and widely accepted use of the word "left" in America. You're right, it's all propagandists engaged in a massive conspiracy. Golly, I'm such a sheep, and I can't believe I feel for it! Good job, you have convinced me that you are right, and you win! Congratulations kiddo, you did it! :)

[–]anticapitalist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The "two parties" could be running General Lee vs Stonewall Jackson, and people like you would think one of them was "the left."

I've never made one single claim about my own political beliefs this entire thread. All I have done is explain to you how the words "left" and "right" in reference to politics are used in the United States.

My desired purpose in this "discussion" was never to educate the way things "should be" or the traditional meanings of "left" or "right", it was only to explain that the accepted definitions for "Left" and "Right" have changed thanks to English's fluidity.

You're free to bitch and whine all you want about how "but that's now what they meeeaaaannnn", but at the end of the day, it will never change the fact that a word is whatever people accept it to be. That's how linguistic fluidity works. That words meaning can change, and a word can mean multiple things. I don't give a shit about what you think about politics. I don't give a shit what you think about the government. The only shit I have given, this entire discussion is to describe how English speaking people in the United States use the words "left" and "right", regardless of those words traditional meaning.

If you chose to respond to this with anything that is not related to how words are interpreted from a linguistic standpoint I'm going to ignore it from here on out. I wish you lots of success in debating that crap with other people, but quite frankly that's not something that interests me.

[–]anticapitalist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The "two parties" could be running General Lee vs Stonewall Jackson, and people like you would think one of them was "the left."

I've never made one single claim about my own political beliefs

The issue isn't your personal endorsement, but your "reasoning" where you obediently regurgitate how one of the two capitalist parties is "the left."

That's propaganda.

. All I have done is explain to you how the words "left" and "right" in reference to politics are used in the United States.

You're confused. I'm aware that people who believe everything they hear (eg the "elections") will call the democrats the left. That is just one possible meaning, and it's not accurate. It's dishonest propaganda to pretend a capitalist owned political party is "the left."

I'm going to ignore it from here on out.

When you're losing a debate & need a way out, that's one method.

Thank you for surrendering the debate.

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The issue isn't your personal endorsement, but your "reasoning" where you obediently regurgitate how one of the two capitalist parties is "the left."

I never made one single claim about my own political beliefs or how I personally choose to label my own thoughts. I am not trying to tell you my thoughts, I am trying to explain to you how the word was used, and how the writings of /u/lethn earlier in our thread would be considered valid by many Americans. Trying to attack me, instead of the issue isn't going to help you here buddy.

You're confused. I'm aware that people who believe everything they hear (eg the "elections") will call the democrats the left. That is just one possible meaning, and it's not accurate. It's dishonest propaganda to pretend a capitalist owned political party is "the left."

In my opinion, it's not dishonest unless there is an intent to deceive. I am much more inclined to believe that /u/lethn simply doesn't have a wide understanding of the difference, rather than that he is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to deceive the public. You're free to disagree.

[–]anticapitalist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"The issue isn't your personal endorsement, but your "reasoning" where you obediently regurgitate how one of the two capitalist parties is "the left."

lol, who is "you" in that statement? If "you" is /u/theYambag, then you are saying that I personally would obediently regurgitate how one of the two capitalist parties is "the left."

However, I never said that "I" would make this claim. I said that the claim is valid in the United States. Just because a definition is valid does not mean that I would use it. Haha. For example, the definition "bad" is valid for the word "gay", but that doesn't mean that I would use it that way.

Again, I'm going to assume that /u/lethn used the word because that is the word that they thought best fit what they were trying to say. I don't believe that there were intending to further or harm any kind of institution other than what they explicitly stated, which means that at best I would agree that they made an error, but without intent, I personally wouldn't call it "propaganda", and I think Merriam-Webster would agree, lol. However, just because I wouldn't use the world "propaganda" that way doesn't mean that I care how you use it! So we clearly disagree, and that's fine.

[–]anticapitalist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said that the claim is valid in the United States.

Again, it's propaganda, not "valid." And that ("I said that bla bla bla") is the "you."

/Sigh

I personally wouldn't call it "propaganda", and I think Merriam-Webster would agree

This is not a logical argument. Propaganda terms are commonly defined by giant corporations, which does not make them legitimate.

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, it's propaganda, not "valid."

lol, the word "left" (or "left-wing") listed here, here, and here as a term that could be used to reference the "congressional left" (traditionally liberal) party, in the case of the United States, meaning Democrats who sit on the left side of the congressional houses, as a commonly accepted usage of the word. Linguistically, the fact that people accept this usage, and that their acceptance has been recognized by these dictionaries, and the fact that English is fluid, makes the definition a valid definition.

So I consider dictionaries to be English authorities, but it sounds like you don't agree with that. Who do you consider to be an authority on the English language?

This is not a logical argument. Propaganda terms are commonly defined by giant corporations, which does not make them legitimate.

Awe, sweetie, I told you that you that I don't care if you disagree with me, and Merriam-Webster. Regardless, thank you for sharing this colorful stance of yours!

[–]anticapitalist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheYambag0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lethn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd like to point since I was mentioned here ( for some reason? :D ) out that when using the term "left" I am talking about the mainstream definition in terms of the political compass. I can understand why there would be some traditional leftists that take issue with being grouped up with that though. If it makes you feel any better capitalists and voluntarysts always get grouped up with the likes of neo-nazi's and social conservatives even though we have nothing to do with the fuckers.

If I started talking about Feminists as Matriarchs ( which is what I believe these people truly are ) and so on in terms of misandry and the detailed differences of Authoritarianism and Libertarian Socialists etc. then people just wouldn't get it because their knowledge doesn't extend that far in politics.

I would agree though it is partly propaganda and I'd rather not have to use those kind of political terms, however we don't have the luxury because that's what the majority of people believe. It's a lot like how the term 'liberal' has been totally butchered now and if you want to talk about real 'liberals' you have to use the term 'classic liberalism' so people understand and don't confuse it with the morons we have now.

Hope that clears things up, if you feel the need to use a different tag than being "Left" I don't blame you in the slightest, this is also partly why I make a point of calling myself an Anarcho-Voluntaryst leaning towards capitalism rather than a pure capitalist or anti-capitalist because of the frequent stereotypes and bullshit definitions associated with the more traditional versions of Anarchism because morons have started hijacking the more well known ideologies without actually knowing what it all means.

[–]Globalization101 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Globalization101 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Globalization1011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scottmk41 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Globalization1012 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Globalization1012 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HelperBot_2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Globalization1010 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

human nature.

There isn't this "human nature." Society's culture has changed many times & will again.

Basically:

> Societies have changed countless times over thousands of years, proving "human nature" isn't a static, unchanging thing. (There isn't one universal human nature that exists for all people in all places at all times under all conditions.)

-- u/JebusWasHere

Similarly:

> "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

-- Andrew Collier

but not in practice

Marx's goal of a stateless society was not limited to one century. Lenin said it would take 500 years. It could take 1000 for capitalist states to be defeated, & for an egalitarian society to replace them.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Certainly human societies have changed over time, in their customs and norms.

However, that does not disprove the existence of a human nature with which those customs and norms must ultimately be compatible.

There are limits regarding what we as humans are capable of, just as there are with any animal.

My dog may understand many words, and can, in fact, detect what I'm saying when I'm spelling out, "L-E-T the D-O-G O-U-T please." This does not mean she is fluent in English or capable of spelling. This does not mean that if I try really hard to teach her, she could ever be capable of understanding English as English-speaking humans do. There are limits regarding what she is capable of.

Lenin said it would take 500 years.

Did he say how many millions of deaths it would take? Because that, I think, is the more pressing concern.

[–]BigLebowskiBot1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Certainly human societies have changed over time, in their customs and norms. However, that does not disprove the existence of a human nature

You're simply confused. The idea of "human nature" is that people's behavior/traits/etc are an unchanging thing they're born to follow, and the fact that people's behavior/etc changes disproves it.

Basically, other than the very basics (eg hunger, etc) there is no human nature. The vast differing amounts of human philosophy & culture disprove the "human nature" myth.

[changing the topic to dogs]

Irrelevant.

Did he say how many millions of deaths it would take?

You're confused. Practically everything you hear about the "deaths of communism" is false propaganda.

The reality is the USSR saved billions by defeating the Nazis.

And all big nations have atrocities.

"the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world."

-- http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

"The United States Has Killed At Least 8 Million People"

-- http://www.peaceonearth.net/8million.htm

etc.

Both of these are ignoring many more millions killed. To get a better idea, you'd have to consider the slavery/murder of Africans, genocide of native americans & many more killings.

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anticapitalist-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I'm going to try to explain this very carefully, as I would a child.

People don't have sex because logically it is what they need to do to perpetuate the species and their genes. They have sex because they like it. They like it (for the most part) because in the past people who liked sex had lots of babies and passed on their sex-liking traits to them, and people who didn't like sex didn't have as many babies to pass on their sex-hating traits to.

In the case of sex, even people who never want kids, who swear up and down that they don't want kids, and do everything in their power not to have kids, typically still like to have sex, still feel a drive to have sex, still feel a drive to pair bond, etc.

People don't grow into full control of their minds. They just don't. If they did, then when they decided they didn't want kids they'd be able to stop wanting and liking sex. They would use reasoning and philosophy to decide that liking sex doesn't serve their interests, and they'd be able to convince themselves to stop liking it and wanting it and seeking it. It would be easy.

Now. You tell me. How do you convince me to care as much about some random guy in Quebec whom I've never met as much as I care about my own children? You know, care so much about him, this guy I don't know, that I'm willing to take half the food off my kid's plate and hand it to him because he's just as human as they are and therefore deserves it as much as they do?

Keeping in mind that because of subconscious certainty of maternity, maternal grandmothers invest more time and energy in their grandchildren than any other grandparent, on average. Keeping in mind that because of subconscious uncertainty of paternity, the paternal grandfather typically invests the least of all in his grandchildren. Keeping in mind that on a subconscious level, fathers invest more time and energy in their children if those children physically resemble them.

You tell me, given all this subconscious shit going on around kinship bonds that absolutely demonstrates that people will favor, without any conscious effort or awareness, individuals whom they feel carry their genes... you tell me how philosophy and reasoning can compel every single member of society (not just you, not just me, not just a handful of communists, but everyone) to care as much about that random guy in Quebec whom we've never met as we do about our own children.

Convince me that human nature need not be compatible with political systems when your political system would require me to care as much about some random guy in Quebec as my own child, and allow my child to go without shoes because that guy I've never met needs them more. Convince me.

Do your best. And we'll see if my "full control" over my mind can compel me to do so, and if the "full control" that hillbilly down the road has over his mind can compel him to do so, and if the "full control" that feminist over there has over her own mind can compel her to do so.

You can save the lives of three people you don't even know. All it would take is for you to let your own child die. If you can't do that, to save THREE people at the cost of one, what makes you think I or anyone else would be capable of feeling about our own close kin the way we feel about strangers? And if we can't, or won't be convinced to, how on earth do you think your system would work?

[–]anticapitalist-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[starting a post with personal attacks]

That shows desperation.

People don't have sex because

I detect the "straw man logical fallacy."

To see why, just read what I said:

Me:

"I never said human behavior was 100% a blank slate, but said specifically there were basic bodily functions (eg hunger) where could be called human nature. "

That includes some sexual behavior. Not all- some is based on people's changing cultures/philosophy.

They would use reasoning and philosophy to decide that liking sex doesn't serve their interests

That happens.

But that's not relevant- I never said sexual behavior wasn't partially human nature.

"Basically, the idea that 'human nature' matches anyone's political beliefs is silly."

-- me

when your political system would require me to care as much about some random guy in Quebec as my own child

There are many people who choose not to care about their children, at all.

That's part of human culture.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are many people who choose not to care about their children, at all.

"Many" is a weasel word. There are "a number" of young women who dump their babies in back alley trash cans every year. That does not mean it's the norm, or ever could or would be the norm.

On top of that, I asked you to convince me I and everyone else could care about a random stranger as much as we care about our own children. Your answer is to say that it's possible, for a small population of cracked out or severely emotionally damaged individuals, to care as LITTLE about their own children as they do about random strangers.

Literally, I asked you to convince me to care as much about some random guy I've never met as I do about my kids, and your answer is that it's possible for me to care as little about my kids as I do about that random guy.

That bodes well for a communist economy.

Is this where someone who's lived through communism comes in and says, "the problem with capitalism is that people aren't equally happy, and the problem with communism is that everyone is equally miserable"?

But that's not relevant- I never said sexual behavior wasn't partially human nature.

Yet your entire ideology depends on every single member of society being willing and able to surmount their instinctive impulses to invest in their own genes over the genes of others. If we can't convince paternal grandfathers to invest as much time and energy in their grandchildren as maternal grandmothers, what makes you think we can convince everyone to invest as much time and energy in random strangers than in their own kin?

I'm not engaging in strawmanning. I honestly don't believe you've thought this through. My arguments aren't against what YOU think need to happen to bring about a communist utopia. They're against what I know would need to happen to bring about a communist utopia.

[–]anticapitalist-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are "a number" of young women who dump their babies in back alley trash cans every year. That does not mean it's the norm

You just made up this idea that exceptions to your assertions must now be "the norm"/majority. That's called the "moving the goalpost" logical fallacy.

Literally, I asked you to convince me to care as much about some random guy I've never met as I do about my kids

You personally are not the topic.

Some people (depending on their philosophy, culture, etc) do not care about their kids at all.

The thing is, you set yourself up for this. You argued so poorly for your position that I can just pick exceptions and win.

Is this where someone who's lived through communism

You're misunderstanding that word. "Communism" is the stateless society communists seek, not the temporary state used to defeat capitalists.

"the problem with capitalism is

That quote is just you trying to change the topic.

Yet your entire ideology depends on every single member of society being willing and able to surmount their instinctive impulses to invest in their own genes over the genes of others.

I never said anything like that. I want workers to not be violently exploited, eg worker co-ops where active workers own their means of production.

They could be greedy & only desire to help themselves, but as long as they do not exploit others, that's fine.

Greed, like "I want a boat, therefore I'll build a boat" is not wrong. Greed that combines with violent exploitation is the main problem.

It's funny how you have absolutely no idea what my philosophy is. You never even asked.

You just wildly guess. Aka, the whole straw man logical fallacy.

[–]girlwriteswhat5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You just made up this idea that exceptions to your assertions must now be "the norm"/majority. That's called the "moving the goalpost" logical fallacy.

Nope. I began by saying you'd have to convince me that all members of society could be convinced to care as much about strangers as their own children. You answered by saying that some people don't care about their own children.

The thing is, you set yourself up for this. You argued so poorly for your position that I can just pick exceptions and win.

Unfortunately, you can't. You can't claim that your system is compatible with a tiny minority of individuals (you know, the ones who don't care about their own children), and therefore compatible with the majority, or humanity on the whole.

"the problem with capitalism is

That quote is just you trying to change the topic.

Says the guy who wrote this one line prior:

"Communism" is the stateless society communists seek, not the temporary state used to defeat capitalists.

Capitalism is not a change of subject. It's part of the communist dialectic. It is as intrinsic to discussions of communism as the devil is to discussions of Christianity.

It's funny how you have absolutely no idea what my philosophy is. You never even asked.

Everything you've said in this comment thread has been so incoherent, I don't know that you even have a philosophy. However, if it is your philosophy that self-interest and profit is not bad, and violent aggression is unacceptable, then you're not a communist. You're a libertarian. And what you're railing against is not the free market, but corporatism (moneyed interests backed up by state authority).

I can only argue against the arguments you've made. I'm not interested in reading your mind to discover the unique brand of unicorn marxism you subscribe to that doesn't really look anything like marxism.

Now I'll wait for you to declare I've strawmanned you again. Even though you have yet to answer any of my challenges.

[–]anticapitalist-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that all members of society could be convinced to care as much about strangers as their own children.

Even though that's completely irrelevant, let's be clear: you're "moving the goalposts" again.

You: (original)

"I asked you to convince me to care as much about some random guy I've never met as I do about my kids"

You: (new)

"that all members of society could be convinced to care as much about strangers as their own children. "

You keep changing it.

I began by saying you'd have to convince me

To be very frank, that is not honest debating.

For me to win an argument (eg all my previous replies) I must provide evidence/reasoning for an assertion, not convince you.

Example:

If I am arguing with a racist Klan member, I only need to argue why my position is backed up by evidence/reasoning.
I do not need to convince him.

You can't claim that your system is compatible with a tiny minority of individuals (you know, the ones who don't care about their own children),

I never endorsed any system like that. You should be ashamed of this conversation. You're just blatantly making up stuff.

It's straw man after straw man.

and violent aggression is unacceptable

Again you're not reading. I didn't mention aggression.

I differentiated:

"greed plus exploitation"

vs

"greed which didn't exploit anyone."

You want to change the topic to "aggression."

The truth is all property enforcement (ie ownership of the land/earth) is enforced with aggression. The threat of property itself is the aggression:

Consider a mugging- such is violent because it's using a threat. It's initiating violence even if the victim doesn't get shot, or even if the victim practices self defense.

Similarly, someone claiming they own some land/earth is threatening enforcement: it's initiating violence via threats.

To be clear, aggression to enforce property opinions is not always wrong. For non-exploitative property, the violence to enforce such is fine.

if it is your philosophy that self-interest and profit is not bad, and violent aggression is unacceptable, then you're not a communist. You're a libertarian.

I don't think you have a fair understanding of those words. Just to be clear, all actual libertarians are anarchists. The state exists for the powerful class to violently remove the liberty of the weak.

And actual supporters of liberty must seek to fully oppose that removal of liberty (the state.)

And yes, I am an anarchist/libertarian. And communists seek (post state) an anarchist/libertarian society. The debate is about whether the capitalist's police state can be defeated directly & go into anarchism (which I'd strongly prefer) or whether some type of temporary state is needed.

. And what you're railing against is not the free market,

There is no such thing as a "free market" because property opinions are enforced violently (eg trespassing laws) & such is not free to those overpowered.

unique brand of unicorn marxism

I'm not a Marxist. I never said I was. Adding "unicorn" etc is just yet another non-serious attempt to personally attack someone instead of debating their views.

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Certainly human societies have changed over time, in their customs and norms. However, that does not disprove the existence of a human nature with which those customs and norms must ultimately be compatible.

This was the statement you took issue with. You claimed (foolishly, IMO) that there is no such thing as a human nature--no such thing as a human psychological/behavioral norm that is constrained by our biology.

And please don't tell me I'm introducing new things to the discussion, when 4 or 5 comments ago, I said this:

You tell me, given all this subconscious shit going on around kinship bonds that absolutely demonstrates that people will favor, without any conscious effort or awareness, individuals whom they feel carry their genes... you tell me how philosophy and reasoning can compel every single member of society (not just you, not just me, not just a handful of communists, but everyone) to care as much about that random guy in Quebec whom we've never met as we do about our own children.

Please don't tell me that I'm introducing this at the last moment. Just because you've ignored it all this time, doesn't mean I'm moving the goalposts.

I never endorsed any system like that. You should be ashamed of this conversation. You're just blatantly making up stuff.

I know you never endorsed a system like that. It was simply your answer to the question of how to get people to care as much about strangers as their own children. Your response to that question was to say that there are some people who don't care at all about their own children. This was the response you gave to my question. Are you retracting it now? Seems a little late for that.

According to /u/anticapitalist, there is no way he can propose to convince people to care as much about strangers as their own kids. But he does concede that there are some outliers who care as little about their own kids as strangers.

If you have an answer other than that, please, provide it. Don't accuse me of strawmanning you. Don't accuse me of moving the goalposts. Don't accuse me of introducing new topics mid-conversation. I'm not.

My premise was clear, and my question was clear.

Premise: Communism cannot work unless people care equally about strangers as they do about themselves and their kin. Human nature interferes with this possibility.

Question: How do we convince people to care as much about strangers as themselves and their kin?

I differentiated:"greed plus exploitation"vs"greed which didn't exploit anyone."

Uh huh. And exploitation has nothing to do with initiation of force or anything.

There is no such thing as a "free market" because property opinions are enforced violently (eg trespassing laws) & such is not free to those overpowered.

Are you one of those "free inhabitants" who have all the rights of citizens while being exempt from the laws governing citizens? Because you say so?

And you still, even amongst all this shimmying, answered my question:

tell me how philosophy and reasoning can compel every single member of society (not just you, not just me, not just a handful of communists, but everyone) to care as much about that random guy in Quebec whom we've never met as we do about our own children.

Please don't offer examples of mothers strangling their newborns with thong panties and throwing them over the fence to prove it.

[–]anticapitalist-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[attempting to change the topic]

Now you're going way back, trying to avoid the newest debunk.

Again, way back then I was very clear: I immediately clarified what I meant by saying there's no "human nature":

"Basically, other than the very basics (eg hunger, etc) there is no human nature. The vast differing amounts of human philosophy & culture disprove the "human nature" myth."

-- me

And soon after:

"I never said human behavior was 100% a blank slate, but said specifically there were basic bodily functions (eg hunger) where could be called human nature.

Basically, the idea that "human nature" matches anyone's political beliefs is silly."

-- me

You can't logically argue against it, thus all the straw men, topic changing, & so on.

4 or 5 comments ago I said

Before that quote you said:

"How do you convince me to care as much about some random guy in Quebec whom I've never met as much as I care about my own children?"

Which is (again) completely irrelevant.

You personally aren't the topic.

And if we take your later statement (that all of society should have to care about some random guy more than someone they know) that's just an irrelevant assertion. Basically:

Premise: Communism cannot work unless people care equally about strangers as they do about themselves

You made no argument for that. It's just an assertion.

There is no such thing as a "free market" because property opinions are enforced violently (eg trespassing laws) & such is not free to those overpowered.

Are you one of those "free inhabitants" who have all the rights of citizens while being exempt from the laws governing citizens?

That's one of the most confused responses yet. I explained how a "free market" is not real because the property opinions are violently enforced (ie not free to those overpowered) and you did not argue why I was wrong.

[–]BigLebowskiBot1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTCtry_another1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Usernamemeh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments