/baw/ - General Discussion

Eh, I could live without ’em.

>>401194
Me too, but what can you do

I mostly make this as a containment thread.

>>401194
You can live without government?

Have you ever tried?

>>401199
Governments don't really like to let people try.

>>401199
WHO WOULD BUILD THE ROADS.........

>>401201
Plenty of destabilized or lawless areas in the world you could move to.

Anarchism is based on the flawed assumption that everyone is an informed moral individual.

The reality is the reverse, informed moral individuals are maybe one in 10,000, and the entire system of civilization is how to play one immoral idiot off against another to ensure stability.

>>401199
The thing is, governments don't create politics, politics create govenrments. Governments take care of politics, leaving the populace at large to disregard it when they want. With no government, you effectively have to be your own diplomat to everywhere else. You might not even qualify as a civillian, depending on interpretation.

>>401223
Anarchism works fine in the small scale. The problem is less about "informed moral individuals" and more about human societies exceeding Dunbar's Number. Most people don't really need to be told to treat other people well when they know everyone else in their society's name and face. It's once people become numbers or you get beyond the number of people you can recognize as individuals that people really start hurting and taking advantage of one another in any serious way that couldn't be dealt with via anarchism.

I'm not proposing that we give up on largescale civilization, I'm just saying that I think your idea of why anarchism doesn't work on that scale is a little cynical.

>>401226
>teaching men not to be men
lol. Masculinity is so fragile in men like you.

>>401227
Just like homosexuality when we teach homos not to homo. Fragile fucks.

>>401228
So you see violence as being as essential to masculinity as having sex with people of the same sex is to homosexuals. Interesting. And sort of proves the point everyone's been making about how toxic your brand of masculinity is.

>>401226
>"teaching men not to be men so they'll be less violent"
what about being a man is inherently violent

or maybe you can answer me what about women make them inherently not violent

also what's it mean to be a man

>watching Obama's address on the Oregon shooting (//youtube.com/watch?v=yca-uwxCsWg)
As an Australian, I don't listen to him much, but I thought that was a sane, thought-provocative speech that raised many valid points. Also, that comment to the journalists was niiiice. Also, why are people calling it angry?
>mfw the camera clicks at the end sound like shitty guns

>>401230
>also what's it mean to be a man

//youtube.com/watch?v=CylP-jwVA68

>>401232
>>401233
See but even this demonstrates the point here: there are multiple forms masculinity can take, and to say that a man has to be a warrior (in the second one) or a messiah (in the first one) is exactly why men need to be granted freedom from the gender roles that have been forced upon us. And the people who prop up the toxic, current form of masculinity are the ones who are limiting what men can be, while feminism is attempting to free us from that. The people who are fighting against that are the people who either benefit from rigid gender roles, or people who are too scared of having to adapt to a world where the rules are different.

And on the point of toxic masculinity, go watch Mad Max: Fury Road. And yes I'm absolutely fucking serious, because Nux’s story arc is about the shedding of toxic masculinity.

In the closed-off society of the War Boys, men are only seen as “true” War Boys if they’re “witnessed” doing something violent and dangerous in service of Immortan Joe. Who knows what they must think of women. And Joe himself—a man who rules via zero-sum dominance and exploitation—is seen as the “truest” man (a role model, even!) amongst the War Boys. Nux wants to “die historic” in service of Joe, but each time he tries, he fails; this leads to Joe judging Nux as “mediocre”. As a result, Nux falls into an emotional black hole, disappointed with no longer being part of something greater than himself—with no longer having a purpose.

Then Nux spends time with Capable—a woman who allows him to express his feelings without first putting himself in mortal danger—and all of that changes. Given time to reflect on himself and his sense of purpose, Nux casts aside his devotion to Joe (as well as the single-minded pursuit of a “historic death” as the final expression of said devotion), then dedicates himself to a new purpose: preserving life by helping Furiosa and the Wives escape Joe. One night of being shown compassion and empathy after a lifetime of being raised to believe Joe and his brand of masculinity is the “true” path for a War Boy changed Nux for the rest of his life; he even fulfills his new “larger than life” purpose by crashing the War Rig, which lets Furiosa and the Wives escape Joe’s convoy and return to Citadel as liberators. He dies not for the selfish gain of one man, but for the net gain of a society that will no longer be controlled by that man.

Nux came from a culture obsessed with primitive ideals of power and domination, and his desire to “die historic” was the result of his immersion in that culture. One night outside of it—a night to reflect on who he is, what he’s done, and what he could do—gave him all he needed to reject Joe’s form of masculinity and embrace a form where men have a purpose in helping the communal good.

And he never needed to be an “alpha male” to do that.

>>401235
>taking those songs as a serious reply
wow

>>401230
>also what's it mean to be a man
We are all mankind.
>what's it mean to be male
Generally, having a penis.
>what's it mean to be masculine
To fall under male stereotypes (such as strength, confidence, sexuality)

>>401237
>We are all mankind.

I didn't ask you what species you are.

>Generally, having a penis.

Having a penis says nothing beyond your biological make up.

And I didn't ask you what it meant to be masculine.

>>401238
>penis says nothing beyond your biological makeup
We are talking about biology here. There are two main sexes: man and woman. The difference is the biological makeup. The clearest signal of which sex a person is is their genitalia.

That is literally what makes someone a man. To be a man means that you are the key, not the lock.

If that answer does not satisfy you, then you are asking the wrong question.

>>401239

>To be a man means that you are the key, not the lock.

Oh my Christ in Heaven, do you actually subscribe to that "one key that opens many locks is better than one lock that can be opened by many keys" mindset?

>>401240
Or the idea that vulvas contain an intricate set of tumblers that can only be opened by a particularly shaped dick.
And that when one fits, the woman's abdomen opens like a giant locket and you pull out a fully formed baby.

>>401241
maybe that guy's a robot and that's how robot women work

i wouldn't know because i did not study robotics

let's ask dr wily

>>401240
No I don't support that 'master key/shitty lock' idea, but I still like to use 'lock and key' as a euphemism for penis and vagina, simply because one is made to be put in the other. No ulterior message.

>>401241
i like that idea

>>401242
I used to have a technology teacher named Mr Willy. He was pure shit at his job.

>>401229
>you see violence as being as essential to masculinity
Actually YOU see that, don't project.

>>401230
>what about being a man is inherently violent
>what about women make them inherently not violent
Feminists seem to think men are violent thugs and women are immaculate perfection. The reality is that women are just as abusive and violent, in some cases more so.... but you'll never hear feminsts starting a preschool for girls to make them "behave less feminine so they'll be less violent."

>>401235
>a man has to be
You're like a broken record, no one else is saying that fam.

>>401245

>one sex does all the violence

You know, I might appreciate the straw you shoved in my mouth if I were a scarecrow. But I’m not.

>>401236
I like the Mad Max series too but this is kind of a bad post.
Important Joe was a god to the War Boys. Nux realized his religion was meaningless and found something he desired more.
Don't think it particularly had anything to do with masculinity or femininity.

Truth be told though, Road Warrior was the best in the series. With so little dialogue it told so much, a fantastic example of Show Don't Tell, and the action was aces.
Definitely one of my all time favorite movies.
What are your favorites, /baw/?

>>401247
And yet, a feminist reading of the movie was popular enough that dozens or even hundreds of MRAs boycotted the film because of it. So regardless of your personal interpretation of it, it's not like he made up the idea that Fury Road was about feminism.

>>401252
>MRAs
It was MGTOWs, and they did it simply because some feminists said they liked it. Also it's closer to dozens, they got BTFO even on /pol/, and many of the weenies changed their minds.

>>401248
I like Waterworld, for some reason no one else does though.

>>401252
Maybe he didn't, but I kind of feel like someone did.

>>401259

Yes, someone did create the idea that Fury Road had feminist undertones, and they did so based on the movie's content and subtext. That's the way cultural analysis works: we look for signals and patterns and subtext, interpret them based on our personal cultural biases, and put them up against others' opinions. I'll give you another example from Fury Road: the arc of the Max and Furiosa relationship is about how, despite how we may all be great in our own individual ways, we need each other to survive—nay, to overcome. Max might never have regained his sense of self without Furiosa (notice that he never says his name to any other character in the film until the moment he’s giving his blood to her), and Furiosa might not have gotten the idea to turn back to the Citadel—to topple Joe’s patriarchal regime—without Max. When Max fails to shoot the Bullet Farmer using a rifle, Furiosa uses Max as a stabilizer for the rifle and nails the shot. When Furiosa is bleeding out, Max gives her his blood to save her. One needed the other, no matter who’s the “one” or the “other”. We only move forward together.

>>401265
I...don't understand what We're All In This Together has to do with feminism--not any moreso than it does egalitarianism, or even moderate MRAs.
In fact, an old radfem friend of mine scolded me pretty seriously for bringing up that idea when we first started discussing social justice with each other.

>>401266

>I...don't understand what We're All In This Together has to do with feminism

It’s not so much that the idea has to do with feminism, so much as it has to do with me showing you an example of how one can read the Max/Furiosa relationship as having that subtext—which, in turn, shows you how people can think Fury Road has feminist undertones/subtext based on both that relationship and other factors within the movie.

>>401266
What exactly is a "moderate" MRA? And what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism? Or is it just that thing misogynists do where they try to deny women their place in the issue by changing the name?

>>401268
>>401267
It wasn't MRAs, it was Aaron Clarey from the MGTOW/Misogynist website "Return of Kings", this was patient zero.
http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road
If you're going to talk about this shit at least take info from someone who was in the fucking threads to begin with.

MRA blogs, youtubers and podcasters (HBR etc) didn't even know about this movie until they heard about it third (fourth?) hand via a twitter outrage storm by an SJWs accusing them of starting the Fury Road hate.
Why the fuck would a rights movement care about a movie? MRAs don't believe in intersectionality or critical theory.

>>401270
>Why the fuck would a rights movement care about a movie?
Because it's not a Rights movement, it's an anti-feminism movement.

>>401268
>what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism?
Egalitarian: Asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.
Feminism: Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.

Egalitarianism is the personal belief that all people are equal, and the personal philosophy to treat everyone equally. Feminism is the political movement that asserts the female sex has fewer privileges in society, and organizes to grant that sex greater privileges.

85% of Americans identify as egalitarian, whereas only 18% of Americans identify as feminists.
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3570070/Vox_Poll_Toplines__2_.0.pdf
I can't speak for other people or the people in that survey, but in my case I treat all people equally and believe all persons are fundamentally equal and have equal worth in society. I also don't identify as feminist because I disagree that females have fewer privileges in society, I disagree with the philosophy of granting females more privileges, and I deeply despise the methods feminists use to grant females more privileges.

>>401272
>I also don't identify as feminist because I disagree that females have fewer privileges in society, I disagree with the philosophy of granting females more privileges, and I deeply despise the methods feminists use to grant females more privileges.
But there's already a term for that philosophy. "Misogynist."

>>401271
Are you saying Men's Rights Activists aren't part of a rights movement?

>>401273
(I can't tell whether this is serious or a joke due to it being on the internet. This is sad)

>>401274
Yes, I am saying they are not part of a rights movement. They are a hate movement that knows calling themselves a hate movement will draw bad publicity.

The U.N.’s Cyberharassment Report Is Really Bad

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html

>>401278
Uh oh, now all the liberals of Plus4 will deny that Sarkeesian is literally the Jack Thompson of our generation.

>>401279

>implying Anita Sarkeesian put together that whole report herself or agrees with every last proposal and idea presented within it

[citation needed]

>>401280
I suspect that the conservatives of the internet have brought about an apotheosis from Anita Sarkeesian--it no longer matters what the actual human being with that name says or does or believes, they have raised her to the status of a Dark God representing everything they hate about women and society at large outside of the sausage party of a society they want gaming to be. She is their Angra Mainyu of their weird manichean cult of penis-worship.

>>401281
And I suspect the liberals of the internet are literally plugging their ears to anyone who argues that Anita is a genuinely horrible person with literally pages upon pages of cited sources about how much of a hack she is, and going "Lalala you're just an MRA who hates women, lalala".

>>401283

Okay. Fine. You wanna call her “the Jack Thompson of our generation”, then put your money where your mouth is: prove she wants video games censored and banned from store shelves for their content just as Jack Thompson did.

I mean, you haven’t forgotten how Jack Thompson actually sue several video game producers for direct liability in regards to several violent incidents, right? Or how he tried to sue several retail outlets to force them into pulling Bully from their shelves? Or how he vowed to stop Rockstar from releasing Manhunt 2 in any way until the company squashed his efforts in court? I have no doubt that you’ll be able to come up with dozens of examples of how Anita Sarkeesian is doing the same kind of shit as he did, now that I’ve given you a small reminder of what he did before the Florida Bar yanked his license to practice law. No doubt at all.

>>401276
>hate movement
>cares about publicity
That's a new one. Maybe you're just seeing the shit parts of the group (like how there are shit parts of the feminism movement too). From what I've seen, it's guys making valid points about rights we don't have, and trying to raise awareness.

That said, I don't keep up with any sex/gender political movements, aside from cringe threads.

>>401286
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement
>Scholars consider the men's rights movement a backlash[3] or countermovement[55] to feminism. Bob Lingard and Peter Douglas suggest that the conservative wing of the men's rights movement rather than the men's rights position in general is an antifeminist backlash.[56] Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men's rights movement as a reactive movement which is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but which has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.[57]

>The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas.[58] Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men.[15][19][49][59] They believe that rights have been taken away from men and that men are victims of feminism and feminizing influences in society.[57] They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege[60][58] and believe that men are often victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.[61][62][15][63] Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problems[58] and some men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men.[15][64][65]
Reactions/criticism

>Sectors of the men's rights movement have been viewed as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies.[4][5][19][66][7][8][9][67][68][69] The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to the movement "voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many."[6][70][71]

>>401287
I stand corrected.

>>401283
Anita can't melt steel beams.

>>401284
News flash dumbass, not everyone who disagrees with you is one person.

>>401293

Breaking News: All I see is "Anonymous". If you want to differentiate yourself from other anonymous posters, get a name/tripcode, otherwise don't get pissed if you stay anonymous and I confuse you with another anonymous poster.

>>401287
>The Southern Poverty Law Center
>The Southern Poverty Law Center

ITTIG

>>401281
>>401284
Apparently Jack Thompson is a dark god/literally hitler

>>401296

No, just an asshole.

Being German, this whole refugee thing is surreal as fuck. Like, they're everywhere. You can't escape it.

>>401297
Like Anita Sarkeesian

>>401299
Criticism is not censorship.

>>401299
I think she's married, fam. So you should move on and start crushing on a new woman.

>>401302
>>Wikipedia

Ah, yes, how dare someone use a source as liberally biased as Wikipedia. They should have used something neutral like Conservapedia, right?

Plus4 is too much of a liberal hugbox for there to be a politics thread. You can spout "intelligent discussion about important topics" all you fucking want. The fact is this community is tiny. And 99% of it is liberal. So there's literally no point of this thread if conservative opinions keep getting shot down, and the ones spouting them are ousted by the community for being "bigots".

>>401268
>What exactly is a "moderate" MRA? And what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism?
Imo,
>radical feminist
"I care about how social issues affect (optional but common: DFAB) women, since men are the oppressor class. "
>moderate feminist
"I care about social issues, especially those that affect women."
>egalitarian
"I care about social issues with no real bias towards gender one way or the other."
>moderate MRA
"I care about social issues, especially the ones that affect men."
>radical MRA
"I care about social issues that affect men, since women are the pampered gender."

>>401302
Criticism is not harassment.

>>401309
Criticism isn't *always* harassment. Anything can be harassment if it's done in a harassing way. Like saying "You look nice today" isn't harassment, but that doesn't mean it's never harassment to compliment someone on their appearance.

>>401306
"liberal hugbox" on the internet is code for "people actually look down on us for calling people niggers here."

>>401272
>85% of Americans identify as egalitarian, whereas only 18% of Americans identify as feminists.
For those who missed it.
//youtube.com/watch?v=SsMw922wd2U

Feminism is a trash movement, feminists are trash, no sane woman today identifies as feminist. Claiming to help women or speak for all women is the epitome of retardation when the vast majority of women doesn't fucking want you to exist.

>>401304
How about use neither of those because they're both heavily biased "public" wikipedias with zero editorial consequences for being wrong?

>>401311
>"liberal hugbox" on the internet is code for "liberal strawmanbox"
Fixed.

>>401302

>she's 100% against violence and is not satisfied with making other types of games available

[citation needed]

>>401312
>How about use neither of those because they're both heavily biased "public" wikipedias with zero editorial consequences for being wrong?
Wikipedia has been tested multiple times and found to have a higher accuracy rate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

>>401311
You're literally proving my point.

>>401316
Oh dear. Are you not feeling hugged enough in this little hugbox?

>>401306

>there's literally no point of this thread if conservative opinions keep getting shot down, and the ones spouting them are ousted by the community for being "bigots"

I don't think we have a problem with conservative opinions. We have a problem with people saying shit like “sandniggers”, then thinking we should take them and their opinions seriously.

>>401317
Are you such a coward you have to hide in your little zealous community instead of attempting to open your mind to different points of view without being a condescending fuckwad?

>>401308

You are aware that 'radical feminist' is a label for a very specific type of feminist politics, right?

>>401315
>Wikipedia is the best.
>Source: Wikipedia.

There is to date no complete, peer reviewed, independent study on Wikipedia accuracy.

The one you're talking about is probably a Nature report from 2005 which took sample articles from Wikipedia and Britannica for comparison. The result was averaged 4 serious errors per page on Wikipedia, and 3 on Britannica. Since then Wikipedia has grown from 3 to 37 million articles, and has massively declined in quality.
However the articles examined were "completed" ones from Wikipedia, and random ones from Britannica. No edit-warring or controversial articles from wiki were used, so the result was biased in their favor even then.

There is another study in 2012 by which compared a few articles on politics (Zhu et al), the results were that 73% of the Wikipedia article examined contained political bias, whereas only 34% of Britannica ones did. But even that's not a complete assessment.

In comparison to Wikipedia, Britannica gets a complete assessment every time it's published.

All anyone reading this needs to know about Wikipedia is to go on the wikiproject Feminism page, pick an article they're currently ruining, and check what the feminist flying monkeys are being sicced on. They just destroyed the Equity and Gender feminism article.

>>401318
Nah, you guys (though not necessarily you) do have a real issue with opposing political opinions.
I post stupid stuff sometimes (>sometimes) for the sake of poking fun at the less stable Radlibanons, but nothing at all like what you said, and still basically every single post I make gets like 3-4 presumably different anons trying their best, God bless their little hearts, to destroy my immovable ego and sense of self-righteousness.
It's pretty ridiculous in all honesty.

>>401324
>Admits to intentionally trolling people
>Uses negative response to admitted trolling as evidence that non-trolling conservatives aren't accepted

>>401325
Why would I poke fun at people if I didn't know it would illicit a great reaction?
The freakouts started before the trolling, and even on my serious posts, people basically lose their minds over me, it's kind of great.
(see: circumcision and the complete non-engagement of anyone once I made a post with substance, it immediately just became jabs at Slowpoke instead of jabs at Slowpoke's Argument)

>>401323

Link me to a video where she says she wants a certain type of game banned from store shelves. Show me an article penned by her where she talks about getting games censored via either legal action or government intervention. I don’t have the time or inclination to hunt through all of her articles, videos, etc. for examples of what you’re accusing her of saying, so a “shortcut” to what she actually said that fits under those descriptions—a “citation”, if you will—is all I’m asking for.

>>401326
You mean when you literally made a post defending someone who said that feminists were wrong for worrying about female genital mutilation because in your mind circumcision is exactly as bad?

>>401328
Be sure to warm up before any and all mental gymnastics, don't want to tear a lobe. ;)

>>401329
It doesn't take any mental gymnastics. I even called you on it at the time. One guy made a post saying how circumcision proved that feminists were stupid for caring about female genital mutiliation. I asked "Are you seriously comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation" and you responded with a post saying that they were exactly the same thing and then when people pointed out that you were becoming a self-parody you started saying how serious you were--but you were still jumping to the defense of a guy who said that being less concerned about circumcision than female genital mutilation was proof of feminist hypocrisy.

>>401315
Depends on the article. The gender articles have shit eaters like Ryulong editing them.

>>401331
Did you notice it's only non-white countries who do FGM? Feminists should fuck off to there.

>>401334
You're right, feminists should help more non-white people. Thanks for indirectly addressing an actual thing feminists struggle with :)

>>401333
Liberals are terminally retarded.

>>401337
Name five issues for feminism in the west that aren't bullshit whining.

>>401338
And it's trolls like this that give actually decent conservatives a bad name

>>401331
No, see, you're still performing the gymnastics, but I don't think you're aware of it--kind of impressive, really, to do so many backflips unconsciously.
Here, let me help you out.
>It's hypocritical to freak out over FGM but not care at all about circumcision
DOES NOT MEAN
>It's stupid to care about genital mutilation, especially FGM.
It means
>We should probably freak out over the fact that we, the US (presumably), who wear a facade of being civilized and advanced, still mutilate half our population's genitals for literally no reason other than aesthetics.
Hope this helped lad, have a great day.

As an aside, interesting that it was only the "conservatives" and the "MRAs" in this thread who cared at all about male genital mutilation, the "feminists" had no issue with it, despite them claiming that feminism helps men too.

>>401340
The thing is, there's more than one kind of genital mutilation, and many are more severe than foreskin removal.
It's possible to care at all about circumcision without prioritizing it highly enough to fit it into the limited time and money one has to go around condeming more severe forms of mutiltion. Unless anti-cirumcision groups are being called up and told to stop what they're doing based on the claim that it's a waste of time, it's just a matter of activists picking thir own battles based on personal interest, which anyone ought to be able to do.

>>401342
Sure, but that's not what people ITT were doing. Someone even said something to the tune of "are you really comparing genital mutilation to a minor cosmetic procedure?"

>>401345
>kill yourself.
You want people to commit suicide because they don't care enough about circumcision, but "feminists are the hateful ones."

>>401345
You're not helping by stamping your feet and shouting, lad.

>>401338
>Liberals are terminally retarded.

Conservatives are the ones who try to pretend like school shootings are a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. So this is probably not put out by liberals.

>>401348
And liberals are the ones who honestly think there's nothing wrong with our public education system.

>>401349
I have never talked to a single liberal who thinks that, and I talk to a lot of liberals.

>>401346
No I want you to kill yourself for pretending you're helping people when you're directly hurting them, and then expecting people to believe your bullshit.

>>401351
Either way you're a hateful dick.

>>401353
This is the most hilarious post in the thread.

>>401354
82% of Americans agree with him you know.

>>401355
You people are adorable.

>>401358
Aww, look how he tries to use big people words he doesn't understand! Couldn't you just eat him up?

>>401345
That's not what gets the attention or fudning of the huge international aid organizations that do the actual work needed to prevent female genital mutilation, not just talk about it on the internet.

>>401355
And here I thought deprogramming was a generally discredited practice.

>>401361
Not among conservatives. They're the ones who think you can "pray the gay away."

>>401362
>all conservatives are bible-humping old people who hate minorities and women, also they swim in money

This is why I fucking hate politics, because faggots like you can't even comprehend the idea of a middle ground.

>>401364
>claims not to hate minorities
>uses fag as a slur

>>401366
And yet you'll post here for the next 3 months, complain about everyone who isn't in complete lockstep with you, claim this place is "insufferably liberal", and do pretty much everything except fuck off.

>>401353

>Cue screenshots of Stone bending over backwards to defend the UN meeting until the bitch with claws in his brain said something bad about the UN conference, now he's all fine with criticizing it.

I didn’t defend the UN meeting or the report created for/by it; I was asked to watch the parts of that presentation where Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn spoke, and I gave my opinion on what I heard in their speeches. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn’t even pay the UN report any mind because I figured it was just another “hokay, here are the problems, and here are some ways we might be able to do a little tiny something about it” sort of thing—well, that, and it’s the fucking UN, so…yeah.

Oh, and I don’t pay attention to anything Sarkeesian and Quinn say until someone else brings it up. Remember how I had to be prodded into watching the UN meeting? If “the bitch”—whichever woman you meant—truly had “claws in my brain”, don’t you think I’d have kept up with everything she said well ahead of posting about her here?

>>401348
It is one.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1002/Many-school-shooters-one-common-factor-a-warped-view-of-masculinity

File this under the "masculinity causes school shootings" label.

>>401370
Sort of depends how you use it. If it's like "Well I'm a fag, but even I think that girl's hot" (or something like that, where it's just a self-identification thing, the way many black people use the word "nigga"), it's one thing. But when you use it as a slur against other people, you're using anti-gay hatespeech. Whether or not you're self-loathing intentionally, doing so is perpetuating a culture of homophobia. So like maybe you're not self-hating, just self-sabotaging.

>>401375
I really don't give a shit, I am more complex than what I choose to fap to. Liberals are faggots because they act like huge fucking assholes and whiny cunts to people for no reason.

>>401376
>Liberals are faggots because they act like huge fucking assholes and whiny cunts to people for no reason.

So you're a liberal is what you're saying.

>>401376
Okay, but here's the thing: you're using "faggot" as shorthand for "something I hate." Your way of describing something as worthy of hate is to compare it to homosexuals. Do you not see why that's self-defeating as a homosexual yourself?

Yes, you are more complex than who or what you have sex with. But you are intentionally propping up language designed to denigrate people like yourself and consider them among the most contemptible things imaginable. if you're *not* self-loathing in one sense or another (even if it's just being ashamed of what you masturbate to), you're someone who doesn't think through the effect their words have.

>>401374
>File this under the "masculinity causes school shootings" label.
Holy shit the link you posted even says WARPED VIEW OF MASCULINITY.

MASCULINITY AS A CONCEPT IS NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S PEOPLE HAVING FUCKED UP AND NARROW-MINDED VIEWS ON HOW TO BE A MAN.

>>401381
>MASCULINITY AS A CONCEPT IS NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S PEOPLE HAVING FUCKED UP AND NARROW-MINDED VIEWS ON HOW TO BE A MAN.

That's what "toxic masculinity" means, numbnuts. It's not a movement against being male, it's a movement against the toxic, warped brand of masculinity that society, and especially 4chan-influenced nerd society, promotes.

>>401380
Yeah really, lol. You're free to plug your ears and pretend your actions don't have greater ramifications, but ultimately not only are you promoting hate against gays, you're also giving people who hate gays a cover to hide behind when they say things like that "See? Even faggots hate faggots!"

It doesn't surprise me though. Conservatives, whether straight or gay, don't really think about how their actions affect anyone other than themselves.

>>401375
>>401383
>pretending to be an authority on which words are appropriate and how they should be used
You're a conservative, you realize that right? Get in a time machine and go back to the Victorian era where you belong.

Also lold at
>conservatives are inconsiderate of other people
>but you should think and do exactly what i say!

>>401382
If that was the case why didn't feminists address toxic femininity first? It's something they deal with every day and I would think that would be their first priority. Oh they didn't do it because you're full of shit? Because it is an attack on men? Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up, I'll stop manspreading, mansplaining and manexisting now, because feminists totally aren't attacking men.

>>401383
Shouldn't you be telling black people to stop calling each other nigga?

>>401378
That's a bit like arguing that calling someone or something "cunt" is comparing it to a vagina (which some people will argue but I think that's dumb). Cunt, faggot, etc are pretty much just Bad Things nowadays--the association to homosexuality isn't relevant or mostly even thought of anymore. In fact, the only people I've seen seriously use the word "fag" to refer to gay people in the past like, 2-3 years, are the WBC.

Stuff like "tranny," on the other hand, I could see arguing against, and I would agree with you there.

>>401385
I don't really have to because most of them don't use it in a hateful way--and those that do tend to get called on it. Chris Rock for example has gotten called on, and later admitted that he shouldn't have said, his old routine about using the word to refer to people of low class. And Dave Chapelle ended up quitting over the way some of his humor was used by racists to support their viewpoints. Admittedly, both of those two are liberals--if they were conservative they would probably just whine about it instead of actually apologize or attempt to change things about the way they communicate their ideas.

But I guess I've never heard anyone say "dude quit being such a massive tranny" when they got camped in CoD.

Ultimately I feel like it boils down to the evolution of language. Slurs are only really slurs as long as they're relevantly used as slurs.
"Nigger" is still a slur because a LOT of people use it as one still, and hearing someone call someone else one as a General Bad Thing makes me cringe.
"Teapot," on the other hand, while a pretty darn antiquated slur, I only know as a slur because I looked it up--I have never heard a Yurop call someone that as a racial deal, always just been a generalized insult. For a more relevant US-oriented one, "greaser," as in the style. Slicked back hair, white tank top, jeans and boots? Racial stereotype. No one really knows that or uses it as one, therefore, I would no longer consider it a slur.

>>401383
I don't see you ever coming to our defense

http://www.queerty.com/mati-weiderpass-gets-kicked-out-of-fire-island-gay-bar-and-the-crowd-goes-wild-20150612

>>401385
The context of the discussion we were having matters. He wasn't using faggot as a term of endearment like nigga frequently is.

If he was using faggot as a term of endearment instead of a derogatory, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>401384
>If that was the case why didn't feminists address toxic femininity first?
They have. I'd argue that regressive ideas like women only belong in the kitchen and are to make babies is pretty shit. Hell, any woman that wants to shit on another woman for not being up to standard of womanhood based on some arbitrary shit...I'd argue that's pretty toxic.

You are *really* butthurt about this. It's been explained to you multiple times what toxic masculinity is, but you keep taking it as some sort of attack on your person, or that it's an attack on any of us men here. Honestly, it's probably best that no one bothers to respond to you anymore. You keep ignoring all points being made (and ignoring all points being made in sources that YOU are citing in this very thread) and you're really running out of places to stretch this argument out before it tears completely.

>>401389
>I don't see you ever coming to our defense
You don't know anything about him outside of what he's posted here.

>>401391
>stay at home mom
>regressive

Jesus christ, feminists are nuts.

>>401390
You're talking to more than one person, faggot. Literally whining about "faggot" on an imageboard. Kill yourself fag.

>>401390
Yeah, he wasn't saying "What's happening, my faggot," he was saying "You're a faggot for disagreeing with me." That is definitely using it as an insult.

And in America at least, "cunt" is definitely considered a gendered insult designed to show contempt for women, Slowpoke. You can disagree with that all you want, and it doesn't surprise me that you do given your opinion on other matters, but it's a fact of life. "Cunt" is a hateful word in the country and culture you live in, as is "faggot," as is "nigger." But I am sure you already know this. I am sure that people who argue that these words "aren't so bad" look around before they use them to make sure the people who they're insulting with them aren't in the room at the time, unless they're the type of asshole that likes to start arguments with strangers in public, in which case there's no hope for that person anyway.

>>401393
what's it like having such godawful reading comprehension

>>401400
Usually people who stick up for stay at home moms get accused of trying to "force" women to stay in the kitchen. Nobody seriously thinks that, just that most women would be happier being moms like they're supposed to instead of being "empowyred" and angry.

>>401396
>You can disagree with that all you want
I do, but that's fine man. It's pretty subjective and heavily relies on the type of person you see in day-to-day life, so you're every bit as entitled to your interpretation and word-based morality as I am to mine. No contention, friend.
>but it's a fact of life
Nae lad.

>>401401
okay

so if you had read my post, you would have seen my word choice and saw that i'm arguing against pigenholing people into these roles

nowhere did i say or imply that women could not be homemakers. i don't know what anything you just said has to do with my post, because, well, i'm talking about giving people the freedom to live how they want.

you are either awful at reading comprehension, stupid, not a native english speaker, or in so much of a rush to shitpost that you didn't even bother to read

>Nobody seriously thinks that

and for that matter, no one actually thinks the earth is 6000 years old either!

>>401402
>Nae lad.

Actually the word cunt is considered pretty offensive and hurtful. If you disagree, tomorrow when you go out, call literally every woman you see, even those you don't know, a cunt. Tell me how that goes.

And that's not "his interpretation" of how the word is seen. I find it odd that someone who's always going on about how he apparently leaves the house somehow doesn't realize that the word cunt is considered a hurtful, gendered insult in the US.

>>401404
>Actually the word cunt is considered pretty offensive and hurtful.
I have not seen anyone argue the contrary, friend. It's an incredibly offensive word.
Is it a comparison to a vagina? Nah. Is it a comparison to a woman? Nah. It's just a Very Bad Thing.
>I find it odd that someone who's always going on about how he apparently leaves the house
I don't think I've posted outside of +/pol/ in at least a couple months. Wait no, I posted in /jam/ a week or two ago.
Sounds like you've got a bit of a vendetta, m80.

>>401405
Well what are you saying? I read your post and while I'm tired, it's not entirely clear what you're conveying. And it's not a vendetta. Pointing out something that seems odd. And it is odd.

>>401406
>And if I used the word around my woman friends

You don't really understand context, do you?

>Stop reading so deep into shit nobody cares about.

Yes, that's exactly why you decided you post about this.

>>401398
Are you seriously citing Michael Scott as a role model for social interactions? Next you'll be citing Archie Bunker as a political hero.

>>401407
The original point was that nowadays, calling someone a fag wasn't saying "you're like a homosexual, which is a bad thing to be." It's just an insult.
Calling someone a cunt isn't saying "you're like a vagina, which is shameful and bad." It's just an insult.

>>401406
>And if I used the word around my woman friends, they wouldn't care.
"I have a female friend who lets me slap her ass, so that means it's not harassment to slap a woman's ass."

>>401387
Ok, how the fuck is that a good example? Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle are celebrities. They have PR managers. If they do something that upsets people, they are literally told ("suggested") to apologize for the sole purpose of damage control. If it were truly up to them individually, they'd say "Fuck 'em."

>>401412
Are you high? Dave Chappelle practically ruined his career when he did what he did. His managers in no way told him to break his contract and fuck off to Africa.

>>401411
No, you stupid fucking retard, because that's directly doing something to a woman. Saying the word "cunt" to a woman WHO IS A STRANGER, is a bad thing. Just like how it's bad to call retards retarded or gay people fags. But used generally, as an insult, it's fucking fine. The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society. It's so miniscule and diminished at this point that there is a general tact rule in place around women and that's literally it.

>>401414
(Psst. Dude. You're talking to strangers right now and calling them faggots and retards and cunts.)

>>401410
>calling someone a fag wasn't saying "you're like a homosexual, which is a bad thing to be."

What? But it was. That's how it became to be an insult.

>>401412

You're not very familiar with the situations he's talking about. Neither of those men backed down from their routines because of the heat they recieved. They did some self reflection and decided not to do that material anymore because it was being used by racists, and they, themselves, as the comedian/artist/whatever didn't care for that.

Hell, Dave Chappelle straight up left his show in the middle of a season because he wasn't feeling it. This wasn't some PR stunt to appease offended people.

>>401414
>The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society.
How do you feel about the word "nigger"?

>>401416
My dude, I feel the fatigue, it is very real.
Let me redirect you back to my post.
>>401410
>The original point was that nowadays, calling someone a fag wasn't saying "you're like a homosexual, which is a bad thing to be." It's just an insult.

>>401418
"Nigga" does not contribute to a racist society, while "nigger" does. "Squads" with both black and white people in them call each other "nigga" regardless of skin color, because the word meaning has changed. Whereas I've actually seen a black man get upset when another black man said "nigger" instead of "nigga". That's how big the difference is.

>>401419
I'd still disagree, but whatever.

On 4chan, I think you can make that argument, but everywhere else I still feel a twinge of good old fashioned homophobia.

>>401420
I wasn't talking about nigga vs nigger.

I'm just getting a gauge for what words are still considered harmful. Because I'd still argue cunt is very gendered. The majority of the time I hear it, it's saved for a woman that people feel a great deal of disdain for. And that's just kinda shitty to me, mostly because of the reasons some people have disdain for women. It's not always justified, so use of the word gets an eyebrow out of me a lot of the time.

>>401420
Good, society should be a little more racist. They're forcing Germany to accept 1.5 million refugees this year. That's insane! We could stand to be a little more like Japan on this issue.

>>401423

Nobody forced Germany to do anything. They did it themselves. And good for them. It's the first non-fucked-up thing they've done in international politics in like ten years.

>>401417
>On an anonymous imageboard they can't see my face on, and I can't see theirs.

How does that change the fact that this does not count as private exchanges between friends who know one another's boundaries and have already given consent about how to be spoken to? You yourself brought up the fact that you know you can't slap random women's asses even if your female friends let you get away with it because you don't know that person and haven't established a relationship whereby that sort of behavior is acceptable, and even that calling a random woman on the street a cunt was unacceptable behavior for the same reason. So you recognize the difference imposed by context, and that while calling your friends who have said they're fine with it cunts doesn't contribute to misogynistic society, calling random people on the street cunts might very well do so.

But you *are* calling random women (and men) who you don't know cunts, and random homosexuals (and heterosexuals) you don't know faggots. We have witnessed you doing it. So even by your own principles, your behavior is unacceptable and contributes to the toxicity of modern society.

>>401417
>Using words as insults
>"Not a derogatory manner"

I'd really like to believe that you're a troll and not actually this incapable of self-awareness.

>>401414
>The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society.
I can confirm this.

>>401421
I personally don't interpret 'faggot' as homophobic due to seeing it so often on 4chan used as a general insult, the same way that calling someone a douche, cunt or an asshole doesn't remind me of those objects.

>>401426
he means 'not in a legitimately insulting manner', like the way that my best friend calls me a 'slimy cunt'. Due to context, it's not actually an insult.

>>401426
Just call him retarded, you baby.

>>401429
I identify as a toddlerkin and you hurt my feelings :(

>>401430
If you're toddlerkin, I would think you would revel in the opportunity to cry about something.

>>401431
Or if you're conservative for that matter. They're effectively the same thing, after all.

>>401431
I laffed a bit, that was pretty good

>>401432
That was weaksauce tho

>Jesus christ, feminists are nuts.
Now you're catching on.

Here's another from just 14hrs ago: LARGE BICEPS ARE TOXIC MASCULINITY, SEXISM FUEL
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/students-warned-too-big-biceps-fuel-sexism/

They're coming out constantly, I can't even imagine the bubble it takes to shield from all these truth bombs.

>>401424
Explain, without weasel words, how European Union taking millions of non-European immigrants in the next 365 days is a good thing.

Keep in mind European Union has a general 11% unemployment rate, which is about 50 million people overall.

Some parts of Europe are collapsing due to unemployment as we speak.

How is putting more people in that situation good.

Explain please.

>>401440

Well, for starters, 'European Union' isn't one big economy, so someone's already being disingenuous in this conversation. Greece is fucked. Germany is doing fine (in large part because they fucked over Greece in order to protect their banking system). Fortunately, nobody's advocating for flooding Greece with refugees.

>>401439
I've noticed that all of the websites you link are notoriously conservatively biased and frequently accused of having zero journalistic standards and even outright fabricating stories. Peculiar.

>>401444
>an economic union is not one big economy
Ooook.

The question is, if Germany needs workers, or if Germany wants to better some poor peoples lives, why not import the unemployed (but highly qualified) starving masses from Greece?

Do you know what the schengen is?

>>401445
If the articles he put forward are incorrect, feel free to provide an alternative, or point out flaws.

Attacking the source itself is kind of a fallacy.

>>401449
In that case allow me to cite this article from the National Enquirer and this other one from the Onion...

The guy's a giant fucking idiot, but really I'm disappointed that everybody here still finds him worth responding to when he's already shown himself to be trolling as hard as possible.

>>401452
Because politics are about discussion and acknowledging opposing viewpoints instead of whining like a baby.

This is why people are talking about Trump instead of laughing him off.

>>401450
Go ahead, and I'll prove it wrong piecemeal... or cite the disclaimer of joke websites.

>>401452
Stone?

>>401452
Yeah, it's getting sad at this point. He was even ignoring articles he was linking to to prove a point.

>>401453
While true, there comes a point at where arguing is futile because the person is either incredibly dumb or being willfully ignorant for "ebin trolling".

>>401454
Stone isn't our village idiot, tho. That title belongs to someone in this thread, a person that has no idea what he's talking about, has a hardon for a certain woman e-celeb, and even links to articles that don't prove his point.

>>401456
Oh, hi Stone.

>>401454
>or cite the disclaimer of joke websites.
I'm pretty sure we just established that questioning the source is fallacious.

>>401458
Questioning a source is fine, dismissing one without reason is not.

You're actually perpetrating a second fallacy by playing dumb and pretending you don't know the difference.

>>401460
I gave a reason for dismissing wnd, breitbart, and the Daily Mail--they regularly fabricate stories and even when the stories are based on truth they slant them so far they're meaningless. You did not consider that valid enough reason to discount them as a source, so I see no reason to treat "It's a joke website" as any more valid.

Anyway, the National Enquirer isn't a joke website, it's a tabloid. Just like the Daily Mail and Breitbart.

>>401457
I'm not Stone. You should have realized that when I decided to respond to you in less than three paragraphs.

>>401447

It's not, though. The European Union is a weird-as-hell system in which certain parts of their economy (like monetary policy) are slaved together but each nation still retains their own distinct economy. Which is why Germany can be doing well while Greece is down the fucking shitter.

Also if you really think Germany's taking on refugees in order to get more workers, you are both hopelessly cynical and not thinking very hard about it.

>>401461
List the reasons for dismissing the linked stories.

Seriously just saying "I don't like X so what X says doesn't apply" is kind of a really shitty thing to do.

Consider that I could say the same thing about you, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>>401465
List the reasons for believing the linked stories. Seriously, just saying "the fact that it's written on the internet by websites known for lying and spreading misinformation means it must be true, and I have no obligation to support my point with sources who aren't known for lying and spreading misinformation" doesn't really do anything. You are the one making the claim. Backing up that claim puts the burden of proof on you.

Put it this way: if I were going to try to prove a point to a conservative, I would not link them to Salon, because I'm well aware that Salon has a bias so notorious that it makes it hard for even serious-minded liberals to believe everything they say, I would find a source like CNN or Reuters or something that actually has some credibility. The fact that you are fighting so hard against providing a credible source for your information, to me, proves that you know what you're saying is a lie.

>>401465

How about "this source has a history of lying and spreading misinformation so long that it makes it difficult to trust them when they say the sky is blue"?

>>401462

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Anything that makes the left look bad is made up, and anyone who is not left-wing is a troll.

>>401473

>Anything that makes the left look bad is made up

So…the US didn’t bomb a hospital the other day?

>>401475
Speaking of, it kinda gets under my skin that Obama gives some huge "GUNS ARE BAD AND INNOCENT DEATHS ARE 100% UNACCEPTABLE" bs after every shooting but still keeps sending out blind air strikes and drone bombings.
I'm not presenting this as any sort of debate topic, just a gripe.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/united-nations-apologizes-for-fault-ridden-cyberviolence-report

www

>>401476

"Government is an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself." Ibn Khaldun

>>401483
Tora Dora <3

>>401473
They want to ignore sources which are unpalatable, so simply start ignoring liberals. The gal who told slowpoke this earlier in the thread was absolutely right.

>>401494
>It's like they expect a 125lb person to defend herself with her hands against a 200lb murderous rapist. Or call cops and wait 15 minutes for them to get there.

Does it make your dick hard when you imagine someone trying to rape you so that you'll have an excuse to kill them? I'll bet it does. That's why people like you seem to think about getting attacked constantly. Murderboners.

>>401499
Wow.

>>401499

If we don't think about a bad thing, it won't happen.

It we prepare for a bad thing, we're fetishizing it.

//youtube.com/watch?v=OsvK9ZbcbIA

>>401501
You think constantly about something that almost never happens. Rape, for example, is almost always someone you know--and non violent. It's date rape and being drugged. Neither of which a gun would help you with. You fantasize about being violently raped so you'll have an excuse to carry killing devices around to justify your bloodlust, because that's sexier to you than protecting yourself from things that actually *do* pose a risk to you, like heart disease or poverty.

>>401476
He may have done some bad, but he also did a lot of good. Obama is no worse than any previous president.

>>401499
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>401502
>>401499
>reading this much into it
Sargons law.

>>401503
>What the fuck is wrong with you?

Just trying to understand the real psychology behind people who don't feel secure unless they know they can easily murder the people around them.

>>401499
>if you prepare to prevent rape you want to be raped

So if I lock my car, that means I want to have my car stolen, one doesn't follow from the other buddy, it's a pure non sequitur.

Far more likely is that you're a rapist and get triggered when potential victims start talking about protection.

So............ GET OUT OF HERE RAPIST!

>>401506
Someone thwarted by a lock doesn't die. So your metaphor only works if you, say, electrify your door handle so that if anyone tries to get in they die. And if you do that, yes, you probably want someone to try to rob you because you want to kill people.

>>401508
This really doesn't explain anything, since the question is mostly why you only seem to think about means of preventing crime when it provides a loophole in murder laws to let you kill people.