Controversial problems with the evolution of green stage relationships? Confused

[billiesimon]

On 3/7/2018 at 1:53 AM, Emerald said:

 So, if two issues run at cross purposes to one another in some way, the bigger issue should get priority and more focus.

I completely agree. Completely. I totally appreciate your effort, but it's not you the problem.

The problem is that if you even DARE to chat about mens issues like suicide, not having purpose in life etc the left destroys your life and attacks you like you were the KKK, and at the same time they want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. 

I think the left is in need of an insane asylum. How can you trust such a "progressive" movement? And I'm not from the right, I don't like conservatives. I'm very centrist politically.

 

Another thing that worries some men and boys, in my opinion rightfully, is that we hope that once the womens issues are fixed, which I'm ALL IN FAVOUR and supportive, we can also get attention and empathy towards our problems. And at the end to get a pleasant society where everybody is accepted and not screamed at. Where there is no slut shaming and no "kill all men" and "all men are rapists". 
Why is it so hard to just care for our own life and let the other live their own? As a very calm and peaceful young man I find it very very cowardly to be classified as evil by the left. At the same time I don't like hearing slut shaming, because it's none of people's business what a woman does in her life.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't fix some biases towards women by treating men like monsters, we are people with emotions and feelings and fears too. We love and breathe too.

But to the left this is just nazi propaganda.

[billiesimon]

The ironic part is that I'm one of the most peace and love people you can find, but that doesn't mean that I like seeing one gender being treated like an evil entity. Otherwise it is called being a doormat. Or a slave.

 

Sorry I forgot a point 
Another thing that worries good men (I'm not talking about assholes) is that while there are A LOT of progressive men who help womens issues to be fixed, there are almost zero women interested in fixing at the same time mens issues. Men are just thrown under the bus by divorce courts and unjust and unfair legal systems, including the atrocious and inhuman treatment of losing your children forever in divorce. It's NOT a small issue. Men love their children and love being fathers. But women just don't care, while we still care a lot about fixing their issues. Just look at how many men are there in the progressive crowds.

It's very sad because I just want both sexes to help eachother. Probably women just care for human issues when it's theirs.

Edited July 5, 2018 by billiesimon

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, billiesimon said:

I completely agree. Completely. I totally appreciate your effort, but it's not you the problem.

The problem is that if you even DARE to chat about mens issues like suicide, not having purpose in life etc the left destroys your life and attacks you like you were the KKK, and at the same time they want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. 

I think the left is in need of an insane asylum. How can you trust such a "progressive" movement? And I'm not from the right, I don't like conservatives. I'm very centrist politically.

The left doesn't want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. The left wants tolerance for Muslims to be able to practice their religion peacefully without discrimination.

But the reason why the left tends to be less receptive to men's issues is that they are often brought up as a cudgel to invalidate any sustained focus toward women's issues and to steer the conversation about women's issues over to a conversation about men's issues, thus showing why Feminism is invalid. And then the conversation gets brought to even less relevant ideas about how all things are essentially equal because everyone has problems and that everyone should just stop complaining and sit around campfires singing Cum-By-Ya together.

And the effect of this conversation steering is that the person has essentially side-stepped the topic of conversation ENTIRELY to focus on totally different topics. So, wanting to talk about "men's issues" is often a dogwhistle that people on the left pick up on that others don't. When men's issues are brought up in relation to Feminism or as a way to invalidate Feminism, it's not really meant to focus toward men's genuine issues. It's mostly just a method of being able to control the conversation and steer it away from uncomfortable topics thus blocking any possibilities for change. 

Like, imagine if you were bringing up an important issue, then someone used your important issue to segue into a completely different topic.

For example, imagine that you were at a place where everyone had pre-purchased a meal and were waiting to have it brought out. But they forgot to bring your meal out. So, you're trying to address that issue of not having any food with the workers, and the workers use your issue as a way to pivot the conversation about how they get hungry sometimes too. Then, they steer the conversation to some point about how it's not just you that deserves food... in fact, everyone deserves food. And how all people in the world should have food whenever they want it. And that even bringing up the fact that you didn't get your food is invalid because there are other issues out there. Then, they send you out of the kitchen without the food you paid for.

But it's just them fast-talking you out of getting your meal. They were never concerned about world hunger in any serious way. They really just want you to stop bitching. 

But the left does actually focus on men's issues as well. It focuses a lot toward the effects of toxic masculinity on men and the social patterns that create a lot of self-esteem issues for men. They also are very critical of the rigid gender roles that give way to so much expectation put upon men to be stoic. And they are critical of the biological determinism argument that women are inherently better caretakers than men, which is the reason why men get the shittier end of the stick in family courts. That said, they do get a bad taste in their mouths about discussing issues like that because they are so often used to invalidate other issues. 

So, not knowing that the left also focuses on men's issues, just makes it seem like you've gotten most of your information on the left from Anti-SJW YouTube, where they find the lowest common denominator of the left. Then, they pass it off as though everyone on the left is some raging man-hater. There is also a huge attempt to make Feminism into a monolith, where everyone in that group has the same beliefs. But there are as many kinds of Feminism as there are flavors of ice cream. 

But if you're a Centrist, you should really question what center is first. And you should recognize that Centrism has no principles of its own because it always exists in relation to the most common poles of whatever the current political climate is in the place you live. So, Centrism in Nazi Germany is to be a Nazi. Centrism in a China is to be a Communist. So, basically, Centrism is a way for people to convince themselves that they have the principles of tolerance toward both sides as long as those sides aren't too far from the center. But too often, Centrism makes a person very non-principled in every other way. This makes Centrists very easy to manipulate by extremists because they often choose Centrism as a stand in for actual principles, and as a way for them to convince themselves that they have nuance. Centrists will often have the very same talking points as extremists because extremists specifically target them with their veiled rhetoric. 

The picture below is a good illustration of why Centrists are easy to manipulate into agreeing with harmful things. It uses the extreme example of genocide to show how dogged Centrism can be a huge weakness. 

 

 

[SFRL]

 

[billiesimon]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

The left doesn't want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. The left wants tolerance for Muslims to be able to practice their religion peacefully without discrimination.

But the reason why the left tends to be less receptive to men's issues is that they are often brought up as a cudgel to invalidate any sustained focus toward women's issues and to steer the conversation about women's issues over to a conversation about men's issues, thus showing why Feminism is invalid. And then the conversation gets brought to even less relevant ideas about how all things are essentially equal because everyone has problems and that everyone should just stop complaining and sit around campfires singing Cum-By-Ya together.

And the effect of this conversation steering is that the person has essentially side-stepped the topic of conversation ENTIRELY to focus on totally different topics. So, wanting to talk about "men's issues" is often a dogwhistle that people on the left pick up on that others don't. When men's issues are brought up in relation to Feminism or as a way to invalidate Feminism, it's not really meant to focus toward men's genuine issues. It's mostly just a method of being able to control the conversation and steer it away from uncomfortable topics thus blocking any possibilities for change. 

Like, imagine if you were bringing up an important issue, then someone used your important issue to segue into a completely different topic.

For example, imagine that you were at a place where everyone had pre-purchased a meal and were waiting to have it brought out. But they forgot to bring your meal out. So, you're trying to address that issue of not having any food with the workers, and the workers use your issue as a way to pivot the conversation about how they get hungry sometimes too. Then, they steer the conversation to some point about how it's not just you that deserves food... in fact, everyone deserves food. And how all people in the world should have food whenever they want it. And that even bringing up the fact that you didn't get your food is invalid because there are other issues out there. Then, they send you out of the kitchen without the food you paid for.

But it's just them fast-talking you out of getting your meal. They were never concerned about world hunger in any serious way. They really just want you to stop bitching. 

But the left does actually focus on men's issues as well. It focuses a lot toward the effects of toxic masculinity on men and the social patterns that create a lot of self-esteem issues for men. They also are very critical of the rigid gender roles that give way to so much expectation put upon men to be stoic. And they are critical of the biological determinism argument that women are inherently better caretakers than men, which is the reason why men get the shittier end of the stick in family courts. That said, they do get a bad taste in their mouths about discussing issues like that because they are so often used to invalidate other issues. 

So, not knowing that the left also focuses on men's issues, just makes it seem like you've gotten most of your information on the left from Anti-SJW YouTube, where they find the lowest common denominator of the left. Then, they pass it off as though everyone on the left is some raging man-hater. There is also a huge attempt to make Feminism into a monolith, where everyone in that group has the same beliefs. But there are as many kinds of Feminism as there are flavors of ice cream. 

But if you're a Centrist, you should really question what center is first. And you should recognize that Centrism has no principles of its own because it always exists in relation to the most common poles of whatever the current political climate is in the place you live. So, Centrism in Nazi Germany is to be a Nazi. Centrism in a China is to be a Communist. So, basically, Centrism is a way for people to convince themselves that they have the principles of tolerance toward both sides as long as those sides aren't too far from the center. But too often, Centrism makes a person very non-principled in every other way. This makes Centrists very easy to manipulate by extremists because they often choose Centrism as a stand in for actual principles, and as a way for them to convince themselves that they have nuance. Centrists will often have the very same talking points as extremists because extremists specifically target them with their veiled rhetoric. 

The picture below is a good illustration of why Centrists are easy to manipulate into agreeing with harmful things. It uses the extreme example of genocide to show how dogged Centrism can be a huge weakness. 

 

 

Lol using memes to debate deep topics makes no sense.
There are similar memes about the left and about the right, and about libertarians.
You can make fun of every single position because no one is perfect.

Centrism has many meanings, and does NOT mean being open to every single political move. A centrist is generally a moderate position where you take elements of the center-left and elements of the center-right. Get your facts straight lol. What you described in your nazi example is the common masses who are ignorant of politics. Not centrists. But it's true that centism changes with the evolution of society. 

Nowadays centrism is basically classical liberalism from the 60s - 70s adapted to our times. In fact I'm a classic liberal, I like left wing elements like public funded medical care, basic senior welfare for everybody etc, but also I like right wing elements like less economic regulations and boosting entrepreneurship. Centrists also tend to be very socially liberal, they appreciate free sexuality and free speech. By the way free speech was a very important victory of the classical left in the past, but now the left is completely rejecting it lol.

I suggest to follow some free thinkers from the american and english political center, not to use examples from the '30 in germany. Today they tend to fall in the classic liberal archetype.

Also you're displaying the typical intollerant left behaviour. If one has a slight slight different approach to politics from a left winger... he's a nazi LOL. Centrists are just liberal folks who don't like extreme reformation of society and extreme welfare programs. But they still like a lot of the products of the old left.

 

 

No, the family court is run by feminists. Men just want to see and raise their children. No one on the conservative party would say that a father should stay away from his kids. That's just feminism. 

Anyway.... I think that the ONLY solution to these problems, womens issues and mens issues together, is to stop arguing and start doing.

I don't care what we call these solutions, but we have to stop arguing amongst political parties and start solving these problems for both genders.
And I literally mean BOTH genders, not just womens. Women need to have their issues solved, absolutely, and so do men.

By the way I remark again that you see no women caring for true male problems, but there you have all the men caring for women in the left. Including me 

[Sea]

 

It's difficult to understand why she gets misrepresented and vilified so much. Her views are very reasonable. I think her anger is just a reaction to the hate she gets. 

However, I still believe men need their movement. @Emerald As you said yourself, feminists don't like to address divorce laws as a particular issue. Waiting for feminists to destroy the patriarchy and then waiting for that change to percolate through society is not option. Especially since laws getting more progressive in one area doesn't mean they'll get more progressive in another. For example, there are still some remnants of religion left in modern secular nations. Unless an issue is talked about enough for people to care, it's not going to change.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Sea

[Sea]

38 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

No, the family court is run by feminists. Men just want to see and raise their children. No one on the conservative party would say that a father should stay away from his kids. That's just feminism. 

Yes, conservative men would consider themselves good fathers but would they be ok with leaving their children in the hands of another man? Probably not. They see themselves as upstanding family men while seeing a majority of other men as potential pedophiles. It's not hard to see how conservatism led to inequalities in divorce court in the first place. Though there are some feminists who say all men are rapists, which isn't helping either.

[billiesimon]

18 minutes ago, Sea said:

Though there are some feminists who say all men are rapists, which isn't helping either.

SOME? 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, billiesimon said:

Lol using memes to debate deep topics makes no sense.
There are similar memes about the left and about the right, and about libertarians.
You can make fun of every single position because no one is perfect.

This meme uses hyperbole to illustrate a really common political pattern that can be observed. So, the meme actually contains a lot of truth. 

Now, Centrists (and the majority of people on the right) wouldn't support genocide at this point, because genocide is currently still an extremist view. Most people don't want to be lumped in with extremists. Most people like to think of themselves as moderates. And most people like to think of themselves as good, normal people who are on the side of righteousness who could never be influenced to do/support bad things like racism, sexism, etc.. 

But because Centrists' political alignment is relationally dependent on the Center Left and Center Right for context, Centrism will naturally shift as society shifts and the idea of what the Center is shifts with it. So, Centrists (like most other people) are often not very politically educated and choose the Center because it seems more reasonable. But they are often not principled and not standing on a firm foundation because their desire to be Center makes them easy to trick if the political environment starts changing or the goalposts start moving. 

And this is a problem, because there are extremist groups on the outer fringes of the right wing (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.), who realize this weakness and actively target Centrists with veiled propaganda that's designed to normalize extremist views and make them seem like they're closer to the Center and more reasonable. And truly, they don't have to seem reasonable in a vacuum. They just have to seem more reasonable in comparison to the left. That's what this meme is trying to illustrate. Centrists will think the people on the right are being more reasonable just because their willing to compromise more. 

It's kind of like sticking a pill in some peanut-butter so the audience doesn't realize.

So, because these groups are acting in bad faith, they don't mind lying or using whatever political manipulation necessary to get extremist views circulating through society in a respectable package. So, they love to hide the pill of their radical viewpoints in ideas like freedom of speech, homeland security, traditions, the idea of personal responsibility, the idea of absolute equality, and being against the "radical" (or not so radical) left. 

2 hours ago, billiesimon said:

Centrism has many meanings, and does NOT mean being open to every single political move. A centrist is generally a moderate position where you take elements of the center-left and elements of the center-right. Get your facts straight lol. What you described in your nazi example is the common masses who are ignorant of politics. Not centrists. But it's true that centism changes with the evolution of society. 

Nowadays centrism is basically classical liberalism from the 60s - 70s adapted to our times. In fact I'm a classic liberal, I like left wing elements like public funded medical care, basic senior welfare for everybody etc, but also I like right wing elements like less economic regulations and boosting entrepreneurship. Centrists also tend to be very socially liberal, they appreciate free sexuality and free speech. By the way free speech was a very important victory of the classical left in the past, but now the left is completely rejecting it lol.

The issue here is that most people who identify as Centrists are not very principled or nuanced with political thought. To call one's self a Centrist is easy. And they tend to miss the pill hidden in the peanut butter. And I'm sure that most people in Nazi Germany were both politically ignorant and identifying themselves with following along with what they considered to be the Center. 

Now, Classic Liberalism is actually a political stance. But the unfortunate thing is the Classic Liberalism also tends to be very susceptible to manipulation by the far right. Because they value freedom of speech a lot (which is good). But they value it without understanding that the appeals to the freedom of speech can be used as a dishonest rhetorical device by those operating in bad faith. That way, whenever someone on the left advocates for people in a protected class's rights to equality, it can be easily framed as an argument against freedom of speech. A lot of far right propaganda comes in the form of criticizing initiatives toward a more fair society as being 'anti-freedom' and 'anti-speech'.

Now, of course, Centrists and Classic Liberals would never go for any argument that is openly pro-racist or pro-sexist. Those things are the things the 'bad guys' do only. But they would certainly support arguments against those who are anti-freedom and anti-speech no matter how righteous their stance was. And they would see the supposed "anti-speech" person as the bad guy in an interaction even if they are protesting someone who supports terrible things.

So, all the Alt Right has to do is proliferate the idea that the left is anti-free speech and have that idea percolate through mainstream politics. That way, whenever there is an issue with hate speech or advocating for things that negatively effect people in protected classes, anyone who calls these things into question will get a lot of "pro-freedom of speech" arguments and accusations of being anti-speech.

But saying that the left is against free speech is just a silencing tactic to put a gag on minority voices rising to the surface. So, it is ironically a huge attack on open public discourse. Because if you can put someone in the "anti-speech box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "identity politics box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "Cultural Marxism box" you don't have to listen to them. 

Richard Spencer who is a well-known white supremacist, uses freedom of speech in this way. He's all about advocating for free speech, and it makes him seem more normal. But in a video he made with another white supremacist, the other one asked him if he really supported free speech. He basically said, (paraphrased) 'No, but it's in the benefit of our movement to pretend like we do to attract people who are more moderate'. And it's not just him. It's a political strategy specifically to mainstream racist and xenophobic views in more attractive wrappers. 

2 hours ago, billiesimon said:

Also you're displaying the typical intollerant left behaviour. If one has a slight slight different approach to politics from a left winger... he's a nazi LOL. Centrists are just liberal folks who don't like extreme reformation of society and extreme welfare programs. But they still like a lot of the products of the old left.

I'm just trying to very thoroughly illustrate to you the potential dangers of your line of thinking. There is nothing intolerant about my viewpoint at all. I don't think you should be forced to believe in this or that. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even criticizing your character or throwing ad hominem arguments at you. And I can totally relate to your views because I used to believe the same exact things, so I understand that you're not acting in bad faith. And the core of your beliefs aren't bad. They just really lack in the area of nuanced, systemic thinking. And there are tons of radical people out there that are specifically strategizing to exploit that lack, to shift the Overton Window further to the right and make their views appear closer to center. 

But I won't concede, because I'm not wrong about the things I've said. You really do have some blindspots. So, you probably read my lack of compromise as being intolerant. Or you take my attempt to educate you as an attempt to shame you and vilify you or even glump you in with extremists. 

2 hours ago, billiesimon said:

No, the family court is run by feminists. Men just want to see and raise their children. No one on the conservative party would say that a father should stay away from his kids. That's just feminism. 

Anyway.... I think that the ONLY solution to these problems, womens issues and mens issues together, is to stop arguing and start doing.

I don't care what we call these solutions, but we have to stop arguing amongst political parties and start solving these problems for both genders.
And I literally mean BOTH genders, not just womens. Women need to have their issues solved, absolutely, and so do men.

By the way I remark again that you see no women caring for true male problems, but there you have all the men caring for women in the left. Including me 

I need some evidence if you say that the Family Courts are run by Feminists. I tend to be pretty well educated on Left Wing talking points: the smart ones and the dumb ones. And I've never even heard them saying anything about Family Courts. Plus, I'm pretty sure the family court system is run by (mostly male) judges. And they are probably of the belief that women are superior care-givers, because a large percentage of people in society (who aren't Feminists) tend to believe that men are better in the workplace and women are better taking care of kids. 

But Conservative politicians would likely say that families should stay together, and bypass the "Who get the kids?" argument. Because there is no answer that would appeal to their supporter base. Conservatives would divide their audience if they said, "Women are superior at raising children and should get the kids", because they rely on the voter support of a lot of men who think that's unfair. They would also divide their audience if they said, "Men and women should raise the kids equally because both the mother and father are equally good caretakers of children." This would divide them because Conservatives tend to believe strongly in rigid gender roles and biological determinism. So, they probably wouldn't talk that much about family courts at all. They would just frame it as an argument against single parenthood.

But I agree that all problems need to be solved. Unequal treatment of men in family courts is a huge issue. And the left isn't the best at addressing this one, because it is this issue is used to vilify and delegitimize the concerns of Feminists (and sometimes women in general) by placing them as the cause of that inequality. But the problem actually doesn't come from Feminists at all. It comes from common folk ideas about the inherent rigidity of gender roles. It comes form the very system that Feminists are attempting to dismantle. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Emerald

[billiesimon]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

This meme uses hyperbole to illustrate a really common political pattern that can be observed. So, the meme actually contains a lot of truth. 

Now, Centrists (and the majority of people on the right) wouldn't support genocide at this point, because genocide is currently still an extremist view. Most people don't want to be lumped in with extremists. Most people like to think of themselves as moderates. And most people like to think of themselves as good, normal people who are on the side of righteousness who could never be influenced to do/support bad things like racism, sexism, etc.. 

But because Centrists' political alignment is relationally dependent on the Center Left and Center Right for context, Centrism will naturally shift as society shifts and the idea of what the Center is shifts with it. So, Centrists (like most other people) are often not very politically educated and choose the Center because it seems more reasonable. But they are often not principled and not standing on a firm foundation because their desire to be Center makes them easy to trick if the political environment starts changing or the goalposts start moving. 

And this is a problem, because there are extremist groups on the outer fringes of the right wing (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.), who realize this weakness and actively target Centrists with veiled propaganda that's designed to normalize extremist views and make them seem like they're closer to the Center and more reasonable. And truly, they don't have to seem reasonable in a vacuum. They just have to seem more reasonable in comparison to the left. That's what this meme is trying to illustrate. Centrists will think the people on the right are being more reasonable just because their willing to compromise more. 

It's kind of like sticking a pill in some peanut-butter so the audience doesn't realize.

So, because these groups are acting in bad faith, they don't mind lying or using whatever political manipulation necessary to get extremist views circulating through society in a respectable package. So, they love to hide the pill of their radical viewpoints in ideas like freedom of speech, homeland security, traditions, the idea of personal responsibility, the idea of absolute equality, and being against the "radical" (or not so radical) left. 

The issue here is that most people who identify as Centrists are not very principled or nuanced with political thought. To call one's self a Centrist is easy. And they tend to miss the pill hidden in the peanut butter. And I'm sure that most people in Nazi Germany were both politically ignorant and identifying themselves with following along with what they considered to be the Center. 

Now, Classic Liberalism is actually a political stance. But the unfortunate thing is the Classic Liberalism also tends to be very susceptible to manipulation by the far right. Because they value freedom of speech a lot (which is good). But they value it without understanding that the appeals to the freedom of speech can be used as a dishonest rhetorical device by those operating in bad faith. That way, whenever someone on the left advocates for people in a protected class's rights to equality, it can be easily framed as an argument against freedom of speech. A lot of far right propaganda comes in the form of criticizing initiatives toward a more fair society as being 'anti-freedom' and 'anti-speech'.

Now, of course, Centrists and Classic Liberals would never go for any argument that is openly pro-racist or pro-sexist. Those things are the things the 'bad guys' do only. But they would certainly support arguments against those who are anti-freedom and anti-speech no matter how righteous their stance was. And they would see the supposed "anti-speech" person as the bad guy in an interaction even if they are protesting someone who supports terrible things.

So, all the Alt Right has to do is proliferate the idea that the left is anti-free speech and have that idea percolate through mainstream politics. That way, whenever there is an issue with hate speech or advocating for things that negatively effect people in protected classes, anyone who calls these things into question will get a lot of "pro-freedom of speech" arguments and accusations of being anti-speech.

But saying that the left is against free speech is just a silencing tactic to put a gag on minority voices rising to the surface. So, it is ironically a huge attack on open public discourse. Because if you can put someone in the "anti-speech box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "identity politics box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "Cultural Marxism box" you don't have to listen to them. 

Richard Spencer who is a well-known white supremacist, uses freedom of speech in this way. He's all about advocating for free speech, and it makes him seem more normal. But in a video he made with another white supremacist, the other one asked him if he really supported free speech. He basically said, (paraphrased) 'No, but it's in the benefit of our movement to pretend like we do to attract people who are more moderate'. And it's not just him. It's a political strategy specifically to mainstream racist and xenophobic views in more attractive wrappers. 

I'm just trying to very thoroughly illustrate to you the potential dangers of your line of thinking. There is nothing intolerant about my viewpoint at all. I don't think you should be forced to believe in this or that. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even criticizing your character or throwing ad hominem arguments at you. And I can totally relate to your views because I used to believe the same exact things, so I understand that you're not acting in bad faith. And the core of your beliefs aren't bad. They just really lack in the area of nuanced, systemic thinking. And there are tons of radical people out there that are specifically strategizing to exploit that lack, to shift the Overton Window further to the right and make their views appear closer to center. 

But I won't concede, because I'm not wrong about the things I've said. You really do have some blindspots. So, you probably read my lack of compromise as being intolerant. Or you take my attempt to educate you as an attempt to shame you and vilify you or even glump you in with extremists. 

I need some evidence if you say that the Family Courts are run by Feminists. I tend to be pretty well educated on Left Wing talking points: the smart ones and the dumb ones. And I've never even heard them saying anything about Family Courts. Plus, I'm pretty sure the family court system is run by (mostly male) judges. And they are probably of the belief that women are superior care-givers, because a large percentage of people in society (who aren't Feminists) tend to believe that men are better in the workplace and women are better taking care of kids. 

But Conservative politicians would likely say that families should stay together, and bypass the "Who get the kids?" argument. Because there is no answer that would appeal to their supporter base. Conservatives would divide their audience if they said, "Women are superior at raising children and should get the kids", because they rely on the voter support of a lot of men who think that's unfair. They would also divide their audience if they said, "Men and women should raise the kids equally because both the mother and father are equally good caretakers of children." This would divide them because Conservatives tend to believe strongly in rigid gender roles and biological determinism. So, they probably wouldn't talk that much about family courts at all. They would just frame it as an argument against single parenthood.

But I agree that all problems need to be solved. Unequal treatment of men in family courts is a huge issue. And the left isn't the best at addressing this one, because it is this issue is used to vilify and delegitimize the concerns of Feminists (and sometimes women in general) by placing them as the cause of that inequality. But the problem actually doesn't come from Feminists at all. It comes from common folk ideas about the inherent rigidity of gender roles. It comes form the very system that Feminists are attempting to dismantle. 

Ok, I thank you for all your clear explanations. I really don't like SJWs who scream loudly and can't reason with people. So I really really like your calm minded and logical explanations, thanks.

I think you missed the point that a lot of feminists are just plainly sexist towards men in speech and articles. Not all of course. But if you've read the literature you have to know that some are sexist as fuck. You can't run a movement for equality with some big rotten apples inside. And then talking to me about classic liberals being nazis LOOOOOL.

If someone is a classic liberal in ACTIONS he/she cannot by definition integrate with far right ideologies. What the heck... This is textbook example of naziphobia from the left. Everyone who disagrees with communism is a nazi. Everybody who says that antifa is SLIGHTLY violent is a nazi and a rapist. What the fuck is going on in the world?

I like most of your reasoning, don't get me wrong! But you clearly suffer of naziphobia and project german nationalsocialist values onto CLASSIC LIBERALS like JFK or martin luther king WTF!!! How in the heaven's fuck is it possibile for a true classic liberal to become entrenched in nationalsocialism or the italian nationalsocialist party? (fascist party)

That's the definition of insanity! Leftism nowadays is just pure insanity and anti-rational. I just want to be honest, no offense for you.

But who the fuck cares if some fake classic liberal in the past changed idea about nazism and joined it? That means he was not really a liberal!

This is the exact same insane and hysterical argument we all hear from far left crazies who see everybody, including people following martin luther king and Kennedy, as NAZIS!!! that's literally worth of mental institution!!!

I want you to really think about that.

Hugs and kisses  study classic liberalism and then talk

[billiesimon]

I'm genuinely shocked by this lol.... 
Nowadays you can't EVEN be a classic liberal. The historical and quintessential definition of a good hearted, tolerant and egalitarian politician.

Motherfucking JFK is a fuckin nazi!!! LOOOOL that's sooo ridiculous!! Ahahahah  Tomorrow hippies are going to be called the new KKK, according to the left 

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

Ok, I thank you for all your clear explanations. I really don't like SJWs who scream loudly and can't reason with people. So I really really like your calm minded and logical explanations, thanks.

I think you missed the point that a lot of feminists are just plainly sexist towards men in speech and articles. Not all of course. But if you've read the literature you have to know that some are sexist as fuck. You can't run a movement for equality with some big rotten apples inside. And then talking to me about classic liberals being nazis LOOOOOL.

If someone is a classic liberal in ACTIONS he/she cannot by definition integrate with far right ideologies. What the heck... This is textbook example of naziphobia from the left. Everyone who disagrees with communism is a nazi. Everybody who says that antifa is SLIGHTLY violent is a nazi and a rapist. What the fuck is going on in the world?

I like most of your reasoning, don't get me wrong! But you clearly suffer of naziphobia and project german nationalsocialist values onto CLASSIC LIBERALS like JFK or martin luther king WTF!!! How in the heaven's fuck is it possibile for a true classic liberal to become entrenched in nationalsocialism or the italian nationalsocialist party? (fascist party)

That's the definition of insanity! Leftism nowadays is just pure insanity and anti-rational. I just want to be honest, no offense for you.

But who the fuck cares if some fake classic liberal in the past changed idea about nazism and joined it? That means he was not really a liberal!

This is the exact same insane and hysterical argument we all hear from far left crazies who see everybody, including people following martin luther king and Kennedy, as NAZIS!!! that's literally worth of mental institution!!!

I want you to really think about that.

Hugs and kisses  study classic liberalism and then talk

You're welcome. Yes. Some Feminists are misandristic. But you have to understand that Feminism is a HUGE movement. So, there are millions of self-identified Feminists. And there are tons of different schools of thought within Feminism, many of which are at odds with one another. So, you could probably find some fringe groups of radical Feminists that are really anti-man. Or you can find some women who think Feminism is about hating men, and they don the title because they think that "Feminism is about hating men." 

But, by and large, that is an uncommon viewpoint in a seas of Feminist viewpoints that are geared toward dismantling social structures that disenfranchise women, and occasionally men and other minority groups. And the "Feminists are against men" argument is just another way to make the views of Feminists (or any woman advocating for her rights) seem less legitimate. And this ideas is weaponized all the same, by the same people that I mentioned above.

But point being, you can't avoid having a few rotten apples in a movement as big and broad as Feminism. I guarantee you there are like five or six Feminist serial killers out there. But that doesn't have anything to do with Feminism. They just happen to be serial killers who identify as Feminists. Feminism isn't an exclusive group that screens everyone who identifies that way. So, you can't look at the behavior of a handful of individuals or even a whole group of radical individuals, and say it's a problem with Feminism. To truly criticize Feminism, you have to address the particular school of Feminism and criticize their beliefs or practices directly. 

Like, I will criticize the heck out of SWERFs and TERFs, because I disagree vehemently with their version of the Feminist ideology.  

But you really have to stop straw-manning me. I never said that Classic Liberals are Nazis. I said that Nazis are strategically targeting people who identify as Centrists and Classic Liberals for the proliferation of their own political agenda. And it's working INCREDIBLY well. They are really good at re-packaging the ideologies of the Third Reich into socially acceptable forms and marketing them out to moderates.

And most people are totally unconscious to the dog whistles of the Alt-Right, which are designed to slip past the sensors of unconscious people who are assured of their lack of vulnerability to their rhetoric. 

So, if you think I'm being paranoid, I just hope you don't like peanut butter that much.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Emerald

[Sea]

@Emerald I know I'm not really a part of this conversation, but to be fair what you're doing does feel an awful lot like a high-pressure sales tactic. There are groups on both the right and the left who tout being uncompromising. Every political group with a strong opinion sees itself as the minority, as the victim. Unless you've got some statistics to back up your claims, I don't think it's fair to assume that centrists are any more susceptible to converting to the right than to the left.

EDIT: For clarification, by minority here I mean minority in terms of political thought.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Sea

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Sea said:

 

It's difficult to understand why she gets misrepresented and vilified so much. Her views are very reasonable. I think her anger is just a reaction to the hate she gets. 

However, I still believe men need their movement. @Emerald As you said yourself, feminists don't like to address divorce laws as a particular issue. Waiting for feminists to destroy the patriarchy and then waiting for that change to percolate through society is not option. Especially since laws getting more progressive in one area doesn't mean they'll get more progressive in another. For example, there are still some remnants of religion left in modern secular nations. Unless an issue is talked about enough for people to care, it's not going to change.

That's funny. I never knew she was actually an intelligent and civil person. I've only ever seen her screaming in that one video. 

But yeah. This is the kind of mis-representation that proliferates in the anti-SJW videos. It just gets more clicks if you stir up more outrage. Fewer people will watch a video that says, "Feminist talking rationally about viewpoints" than a video called, "Triggered Feminist gets REKT by logic."

And of course, hyper right-wing extremists in the Alt-RIght have fully embraced this pattern of YouTubers posting anti-SJW content as part of their rhetorical strategy, so that anyone who has a viewpoint that's left of center looks radical. Even TJ Kirk (who is on the left) did a lot of Anti-SJW videos, recognizes that this has paved the wave for people to weaponize videos of this sort and make the radical right look more reasonable by comparison to the radical (or not so radical) left.

But yes. men's issues definitely deserve to be addressed. They're just too often used to disrupt and obscure the issues that Feminists are focused on. Basically, they should start a new conversation. But don't use that conversation to encroach upon a pre-existing conversation in the hopes that it will shut that conversation down.  

[billiesimon]

26 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, if you think I'm being paranoid, I just hope you don't like peanut butter that much.

 

And so as you hear these words
telling you now of my state
I tell you to enjoy life
I wish I could but it's too late

 

Communists were anti-nazism, nazis were anti communism. Both were insane. These are extreme ends of the political spectrum, not the ACTUAL center.

Learn the difference between poles and center  much love. Changing political compass has nothing to do with the single ideologies. Ideologies are static. People change according to what is their walk of life.

[billiesimon]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, if you think I'm being paranoid, I just hope you don't like peanut butter that much.

 

Is this some kind of political flirting?  I'm flattered by such a persistent woman  (I'm joking, don't get mad XD)

I like nutella hazelnut chocolate, which is very popular here in Italy  Peanut butter is for lame americans 

[billiesimon]

23 minutes ago, Sea said:

Unless you've got some statistics to back up your claims, I don't think it's fair to assume that centrists are any more susceptible to converting to the right than to the left.

Yeah, didn't you know? Now the liberal center is the epitome of political extremism and potatoes grow in the stratosphere.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

And so as you hear these words
telling you now of my state
I tell you to enjoy life
I wish I could but it's too late

 

Communists were anti-nazism, nazis were anti communism. Both were insane. These are extreme ends of the political spectrum, not the ACTUAL center.

Learn the difference between poles and center  much love. Changing political compass has nothing to do with the single ideologies. Ideologies are static. People change according to what is their walk of life.

Unfortunately, there is no true idealogical center. In reality, humans are capable of considering even Nazi-ism as the center, if that's what everyone else is doing. That's why being a Centrist means totally different things in different societies. 

Not knowing this about human nature, is what leaves the door wide open for a shift like that in the political climate. And not knowing this in our own nature and our assuredness in our own incorruptibility, is what leaves the door wide open for unwittingly aiding the Alt-RIght in gaining more an more of a foothold in mainstream society. 

And certain ideas when held onto dogmatically, even great ideas like freedom of speech, can create the necessary blindspots for those acting in bad faith (like Neo Nazis) to covertly take control of the narrative.

And if you think there are no Neo-Nazis around, you should pay more attention. They do exist, and they are having effect on the Overton Window and doing a pretty good job at getting people to see them as legitimate. Take a look at how many people subscribe to popular Alt-Righters on YouTube. It's not a small number. That means that there are a ton of people who are at least sympathetic to those viewpoints. 

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Sea said:

@Emerald I know I'm not really a part of this conversation, but to be fair what you're doing does feel an awful lot like a high-pressure sales tactic. There are groups on both the right and the left who tout being uncompromising. Every political group with a strong opinion sees itself as the minority, as the victim. Unless you've got some statistics to back up your claims, I don't think it's fair to assume that centrists are any more susceptible to converting to the right than to the left.

I'm literally just telling him something that's happening and telling him to watch out. But he still thinks I'm paranoid about this. 

Now, can I give you statistics? No. It's not really a quantifiable phenomenon. But you can notice various rhetorical devices being used by the extreme right to normalize their views by presenting themselves in such a way that has plausible deniability and a veil of normalcy. And once you see it, you can't unsee it.

But it can be hard to get people to see it because they are very crafty at hiding their ideologies in positive euphemisms like "states rights" or "freedom of speech" or "being anti-identity politics." And people really eat up these euphemisms and repeat them all the time.

But people on the left aren't necessarily the victims. It's the people who are at risk of being negatively effected, if the society write off the views of the left and see the left as being radical even when it's not, and sides more with the radical right over the moderate left (which gets mischaracterized as radical).

So, it's not that the political left is the main victim. It's just that women, people of color, gay people, trans people, religious minorities, and disabled people will be victims if all left-wing politics geared toward addressing their issues is seen in the public eye as radical, regressive, and anti-freedom. 

But the intention is to make them seem that way by giving the least charitable representations of the social justice movements in terms of people and arguments. 

[billiesimon]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm literally just telling him something that's happening and telling him to watch out. But he still thinks I'm paranoid about this. 

No, I just gave you a nice seventies song about it. 
.
.
Which you ignored  probably didn't even listen to  I am also somehow decent at playing it. Maybe.