• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

considering opposition to feminism, black lives matter, LBGT rights, as just differen

Status
Not open for further replies.

This article only reflects the perception of feminism:

”In our survey we also asked people for their instant reaction to the word ‘feminist'. We found the negative responses clearly in the minority as others saw the word as political, referring to campaigners, or offered explicitly positive words."

People were asked to say the first word that popped into their heads when they heard the word ”feminist".

More than a quarter said ”bitchy", while 22 per cent said ”strength", 17 per cent said ”suffragette" and the same amount used words related to gender such as ”woman or female."

So while feminism may have an image problem among Britons, it doesn't get to the root of why that image problem exists, nor does it have anything to do with your assertion that Feminism is increasingly about man hating.

And I didn't say BLM's "goal" was to burn cities, that's just how they "protest" if you can call it that.


DeRay Mckesson: All Actions of Black Lives Matter Rioters Are Justified

This source seems a bit....slanted
sJRxedL.png


Let's look at the actual Mckesson quote instead of this incendiary hit piece.

Let's tie this up with a final question in light of the recent Milwaukee unrest. You prefer to use the term ”protests" to describe these events. Does it bother you that some people used the term ”riot" instead?

What I know to be true is that people should not have had to feel like the only way for them being heard is by being in the street. And that is true across the country. I said that about Ferguson, I say that about Baltimore, I say that about Minneapolis, Chicago, every city in the country where people have taken to the streets. Remember, people take to the streets as a last resort. They've made the phone call, they've tweeted, they've emailed, they've tried. And by the time people are in the street, it is because there is no other option. So when I think about anything that happens when people are in the street, I always start by saying, ”People should not have had to have been there in the first place."

If you read it properly, he's not advocating violence. He's saying people are out in the streets protesting with or without the violence because they have no other way to get their voices heard.

Maybe next time actually click through to the source rather than blindly trust a site whose sole purpose it seems is to demonize any progressive voices in the world.
 

Caelus

Member
Sorry people, abortion is a real topic worth arguing. We are talking about a fundamental argument on the basis of human life. It's just common sense to treat all people equally, but abortion isn't that simple.

Pro-choice means enabling women to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and guess what? Sometimes women choose not to. It's not up to society to police that, put their lives in danger or impose burdens upon them.
 
"Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists"

If femenism = equal rights, why is there such a gap between people who identify as feminist and people who support womens rights?

And I didn't say BLM's "goal" was to burn cities, that's just how they "protest" if you can call it that.


DeRay Mckesson: All Actions of Black Lives Matter Rioters Are Justified
Did you even read your own article? He's not advocating for it at all.

"What I know to be true is that people should not have had to feel like the only way for them being heard is by being in the street," justified Mckesson. "And that is true across the country. I said that about Ferguson, I say that about Baltimore, I say that about Minneapolis, Chicago, every city in the country where people have taken to the streets."

Mckesson continued his defense: "Remember, people take to the streets as a last resort," This is not him advocating for it. Just a reason why some do.he insisted. "They’ve made the phone call, they’ve tweeted, they’ve emailed, they’ve tried. And by the time people are in the street, it is because there is no other option."

The leader then granted troubling blanket amnesty for all acts at the protests-turned-riots, since it’s supposedly society’s fault that rioters are even "there in the first place."

"So when I think about anything that happens when people are in the street, I always start by saying, 'People should not have had to have been there in the first place,'" Did you miss this entire sentence? he stated.

Fellow Gaffers we have some serious work to do in this country.
 

Deepwater

Member
To be fair, is it not true that the "white majority" will become a minority in a decade or two? At that point would it be okay to have special interest group?

Yall don't deserve shit to be honest. Every time you organize in the name of white interests, we end up at genocide, slavery, or some other form of oppression.
 
Yall don't deserve shit to be honest. Every time you organize in the name of white interests, we end up at genocide, slavery, or some other form of oppression.

Aren't you the guy that said white people's lives are worth less than animals? I hope you're a troll.
 

Special C

Member
Pro-choice means enabling women to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and guess what? Sometimes women choose not to. It's not up to society to police that, put their lives in danger or impose burdens upon them.

Incorrect. If a person's life truly begins at conception, then it's the government's job to police and protect that child. If not, then it isn't. The argument is about when a child is a child. And there are two distinct stances on that worth debating.
 
Personally I probably fall on the more extreme end of this, but even so there's the fact that if you condone violence against these people it's going to escalate. I can accept that. But the people who only tolerate a punch, should know what they're getting into.

The issue with nazis and violence isn't a big one. It's not a big one at all. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Has anyone posted Warren Ellis' piece on this yet? It's pretty good, I thought.

Warren Ellis said:
I understand there’s been some confusion online as to whether it’s ever right to punch a Nazi in the face. There is a compelling argument that all speech is equal and we should trust to the discourse to reveal these ideas for what they are and confidently expect them to be denounced and crushed out by the mechanisms of democracy and freedom.

All I can tell you is, from my perspective as an old English socialist and cultural liberal who is probably way to the woolly left from most of you and actually has a medal for services to free speech — yes, it is always correct to punch Nazis. They lost the right to not be punched in the face when they started spouting genocidal ideologies that in living memory killed millions upon millions of people. And anyone who stands up and respectfully applauds their perfect right to say these things should probably also be punched, because they are clearly surplus to human requirements. Nazis do not need a hug. Nazis do not need to be indulged. Their world doesn’t get better until you’ve been removed from it. Your false equivalences mean nothing. Their agenda is always, always, extermination. Nazis need a punch in the face.

(And the argument that such assaults allow Nazis to get more attention doesn’t work so well when they were already going live on a national television network, because this is where we are now. This is how normalised their presence in our culture is.)

Glad we got that cleared up.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Thankfully the only presidential candidate who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act lost the election.
 
The issue with nazis and violence is a big one. Even here we've got one person saying a punch is okay, but no further. And then the next post calls for breaking a jaw.

Personally I probably fall on the more extreme end of this, but even so there's the fact that if you condone any kind of violence against these people it's going to escalate. I can accept that. But the people who only tolerate a punch, should know what they're getting into.
All I know is I like it when people punch Nazis.

Sorry people, abortion is a real topic worth arguing. We are talking about a fundamental argument on the basis of human life. It's just common sense to treat all people equally, but abortion isn't that simple.
I agree, and this is a situation where there are two different opinions on the subject, but this shouldn't apply to the legality of abortion. There's no good argument for prohibiting or shutting down abortion clinics.

Incorrect. If a person's life truly begins at conception, then it's the government's job to police and protect that child. If not, then it isn't. The argument is about when a child is a child. And there are two distinct stances on that worth debating.
No. The government is free to try to keep the fetus alive outside of the unwilling woman's body, but no person should be forced to care for an unwanted parasite for nine months at great personal cost.
 

Zophar

Member
Sorry people, abortion is a real topic worth arguing. We are talking about a fundamental argument on the basis of human life. It's just common sense to treat all people equally, but abortion isn't that simple.

This is only true if you accept the (very questionable, unsupported by evidence) axiom that the unborn are alive at every step of the gestation process.

Incorrect. If a person's life truly begins at conception,

It doesn't.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
To be fair, is it not true that the "white majority" will become a minority in a decade or two? At that point would it be okay to have special interest group?

Not necessarily because of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. generation Hispanics. The overall white demographic will decrease but not as quickly as once predicted.

The whole "demographics" argument that came up prior to the presidential election and how Republicans can't ever win the presidency again I think won't come to fruition as starkly as predicated since some Hispanics have started identifying as white and being accepted as white. This is happening especially in places like Texas.

Also consider that hispanic + white children will often end up looking white and will be treated as such. The whole "one drop" rule doesn't really apply to Hispanic mixed individuals.

Basically the demise of the white population has been greatly exaggerated like it was over 100 years ago when the "non-white" Irish and Italians emigrated here.
 

Caelus

Member
Incorrect. If a person's life truly begins at conception, then it's the government's job to police and protect that child.

Fine. The government must therefore offer financial and medical assistance to mothers who are unable to support a child on their own or do not want to raise that child, and only applied in cases where the pregnancy does not risk the mother's or newborn's life. Else what is the point of 'pro-life'

And again, I don't see why the government must override the decision of a currently living human. This is a medical procedure, not infanticide.
 
Fine. The government must therefore offer financial and medical assistance to mothers who are unable to support a child on their own or do not want to raise that child, and only applied in cases where the pregnancy does not risk the mother's or newborn's life. Else what is the point of 'pro-life'
Nah, I think this is still too much. I don't have to house and feed random homeless people under penalty of law, a pregnant woman shouldn't have to do the same for a child. And keeping that homeless person physically tethered to you for nine months is a more apt comparison.
 
Let's not pretend sitting down with people like Spencer and entertaining their bullshit doesn't have a huge cost in terms of basic human decency:

Last week, Spencer was reluctant to discuss how that dream would be achieved.

How, he was asked, in a nation with more than 100 million blacks, Asians and Latinos, could a whites-only territory be created without overwhelming violence?

Over chocolate croissants and an Americano coffee at a Corner Bakery Cafe, he avoided the question, discussing Nietzsche, communism’s origins, history’s unpredictability.

Then, at last, he offered an answer.

“Look, maybe it will be horribly bloody and terrible,” he said. “That’s a possibility with everything.”
 

Caelus

Member
Nah, I think this is still too much. I don't have to house and feed random homeless people under penalty of law, a pregnant woman shouldn't have to do the same for a child. And keeping that homeless person physically tethered to you for nine months is a more apt comparison.

I don't agree with that proposal really, I'm just saying that if people demand the illegality of abortion out of concern for the child, they must provide an alternative where the child is taken care of - doesn't have to be by the mother necessarily.
 
You draw the line at Nazis and others with reprehensible views. And of course I'm okay with someone beating up a Nazi.

They're protected by the law but I think a lot of us would be okay with spending a night or two in jail because you broke a Nazi's jaw.

Yea, I won't lose any sleep over a Nazi getting punched. That's an extreme example though.

You get into a grey area where the general public gets to decide what views are reprehensible.

Like the OP included women's rights. I'm not comfortable with pro life people getting assaulted.

What if someone is largely pro choice, but against partial birth abortion. Is that a reprehensible view?

Is anyone arguing for that, though? In either this thread or the last one, have you seen anyone suggest Richard Spencer shoulda been killed?

Richard Spencer should not have been summarily shot on sight. He shouldn't have had limbs removed, or broken. The person who assaulted him would probably have taken the rap, just like many protesters end up taking their arrests and getting their mugshots.

Why wouldn't it be obvious where the line is drawn? What is it about this particular act of violence that has people so shook that they're now questioning whether anti-nazi sentiment can be properly contained so as to prevent the total downfall of civil society at the hands of wild, out-of-control anti-fascists gleefully taking to the streets and maiming/disabling anyone who might harbor sexist/racist/misogynist sentiments?

The line is drawn where it is for most philosophical disagreements that lead to brief fisticuffs in the heat of the moment: A couple punches and then disengagement. And even then, only in fairly extreme instances, such as the one that sparked this weird handwringing in the first place, regarding a man who is literally a neo-nazi, and publicly demonstrated as such.

Again: The devils are in the white house now. This sort of volunteer advocacy for them isn't the sort of clear-eyed helpful thought exercise people like to think it is. This shit isn't happening in a vaccuum, and the hypotheticals being entertained (society pulled down by rabid left-wingers who decide to punch out all their problems because they can't handle Nazis correctly) are ridiculous.

You're saying this comes down to a lot of subjective elements, so no it's not obvious to me where the line is drawn:

I mean, thats what we did to the Nazis in WWII and it stamped them out as a major force for a good 70 years. Do you want to wait until this new brand of Nazism starts causing real damage before we retaliate?

Nazis are scum. Theyre trash. And the trash has to be taken out, no?
 

azyless

Member
I don't have time to waste with people like this tbh. If you think my rights and my existence are up for debate then you can fuck off.
 

Deepwater

Member
Yea, I won't lose any sleep over a Nazi getting punched. That's an extreme example though.

You get into a grey area where the general public gets to decide what views are reprehensible.

Like the OP included women's rights. I'm not comfortable with pro life people getting assaulted.

What if someone is largely pro choice, but against partial birth abortion. Is that a reprehensible view?

This line of questioning is out of context though with the example at hand. Let's keep in mind the nature of the rhetoric of Richard Spencer and the blatantly inciteful and violent things he's advocated for. I would say it's not okay to punch someone who's pro life, but it would definitely be okay to punch somebody who's okay with the bombing of abortion clinics, or believes those who get abortions should be subject to violence.

This normalization of extremely violent and harmful rhetoric by juxtaposing it with violence against much more milder political positions is dangerous. And by that I mean you can't just say Richard Spencer getting punched is an extreme example because people with his exact views are the ones with political power now.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
OP title could have been worded better. I'm for equal rights among everyone, but feminism has become less about equality and more about man-hating. Only 7% of people in the UK say they're feminist but around 80% say they're for equality in the sexes.
Funny thing about that. Also how old are you? Feminism is as much about man-hating as BLM is about keeping white people down.
 

Caelus

Member
The existence of structural oppression is similar to the existence of global warming - that is to say, it is basic fact, upholded by plenty of data and studies, and should serve as a premise for debates on how to solve these issues - not debates on whether or not the issue exists or is even bad in the first place.

We should be figuring out how to lower carbon emissions and mass incarceration and the same time, but if we're still deciding whether or not structural racism and global warming are prevalent in the first place, then we're fucking ourselves over.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
To those who support violence against Nazis and others with reprerehensible views, where do you draw the line?

Should the attacker be protected under the law for the assault?

Would you be okay with the Nazi being brutally beaten or killed?

Should the attacker be charged with assault? Yes, he did punch someone.

Would I be okay with a Nazi being brutally beaten or killed? Well... I wouldn't stop anyone from beating a Nazi, I would stop them from being killed though. I draw my line there, personally. That said, if I overheard that a Nazi was murdered, I wouldn't honestly care.
 
Those groups are now referred to as "identity politics", by the very same people that single them out to deny them equal protections under the law.
 
This is only true if you accept the (very questionable, unsupported by evidence) axiom that the unborn are alive at every step of the gestation process.



It doesn't.

This is a semantic at best argument.

A conceived fetus has the same potential to cure cancer, stop global warming, destroy the world, or become a murderer as a baby with a birth certificate.

The line you use to separate where something becomes a person can only logically be at conception. Without conception, no life.

I don't agree with illegalization of abortion but people shouldn't pretend they aren't doing what they are doing. They are ending a human life. That's the reality of it for all the rationalization.
 
Thankfully the only presidential candidate who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act lost the election.

Of course you already knew that the other major candidate has never served in any elected position ever and therefore had no voting record to speak of, which means you also knew that this was a nonsensical comparison that ignores the vast swaths of other evidence in the form of public statements, personnel actions, and stated policy positions available to anyone who was genuinely interested in divining the true differences between the candidates on this or any issue, which means you also chose to deliberately ignore those facts solely so you could attempt to derail the thread around an idiotic hot take, even though said hot take doesn't survive two seconds of scrutiny from anyone even marginally informed about the candidates. What should I conclude about your willingness to participate in good faith discussion given that you still thought it was a good idea to post that?
 
People were tripping over themselves to say that punching this person makes us just as bad as them and that it only emboldens nazism. Literally fighting back against nazism somehow emboldens it. Meaning that in their eyes, someone would watch that video of a white dude punching a nazi and somehow that would make the viewer a nazi supporter himself.

Sadly not everybody has read Captain America.

It's supposed to be that killing them makes them martyrs that other will try to imitate, but punching Nazis was alright.
 

Zophar

Member
This is a semantic at best argument.

A conceived fetus has the same potential to cure cancer, stop global warming, destroy the world, or become a murderer as a baby with a birth certificate.

The line you use to separate where something becomes a person can only logically be at conception. Without conception, no life.

I don't agree with illegalization of abortion but people shouldn't pretend they aren't doing what they are doing. They are ending a human life. That's the reality of it for all the rationalization.

So the 31% of conceptions that end in miscarriage, completely by natural forces and often without the knowledge of the parent -- that's ending a human life? Are these countless women caught in an ethical dilemma? http://www.checkpregnancy.com/miscarriage-statistics/

"Life begins at conception" was the first fake news. There is nothing about a zygote that fits any accepted descriptor of a living being, other than it sharing the DNA of two separate human beings.
 

Lowmelody

Member
One good thing came from it. It was like the "flashlight at eye level" trick- we were suddenly able to see all the snakes that were really in the grass.

That's a pretty succinct description of exactly what was occurring since the 8th, here and elsewhere. Opposition is known, but those closest do the most harm.
 

UberTag

Member
The existence of structural oppression is similar to the existence of global warming - that is to say, it is basic fact, upholded by plenty of data and studies, and should serve as a premise for debates on how to solve these issues - not debates on whether or not the issue exists or is even bad in the first place.

We should be figuring out how to lower carbon emissions and mass incarceration and the same time, but if we're still deciding whether or not structural racism and global warming are prevalent in the first place, then we're fucking ourselves over.
This is entirely by design, incidentally.
They want to make the relevancy/existence issue the point of debate as a deflection tactic to skirt having any accountability or to do anything outside of the status quo.
 

cress2000

Member
The issue with nazis and violence is a big one. Even here we've got one person saying a punch is okay, but no further. And then the next post calls for breaking a jaw.

Personally I probably fall on the more extreme end of this, but even so there's the fact that if you condone any kind of violence against these people it's going to escalate. I can accept that. But the people who only tolerate a punch, should know what they're getting into.

Even if this true, then good, let it. We'll rise to crush them all. We've done it before and we'll do it again. Pacifism only lessens their fear.
 
Believing that black people do not deserve equal protection, freedom, and happiness might be an opinion, but it's a godawful one with horrible ramifications to millions of people. Moderate liberal handwringing over the "right to have an opinion" directly enables white nationalists and other bigots, by encouraging their voices to be broadcast unchallenged.

Ms. Galaxy is correct. It's futile to debate with people who want to oppress, deport, or massacre tens of millions of people for being the wrong race. Defending Richard Spencer against the mean ol' leftist who punched him plays right into the white nationalist victim complex and suggests that literal Nazis should feel free to express their views.

Many civilized countries have allowed and sanctioned neo-nazi groups to host their own rallies, make public radio and allow them to congregate and recruit for decades and decades because it has been a testament to the foundation of democracy; that you can have a free system that is tolerant against intolerance itself. By walking the walk and talking the talk, allowing fascist groups to use their free speech that they themselves would infringe had the roles been reversed, has been an amazing counter to pacifying a belief system that otherwise might have faced more radicalization, extremism and victim complex in the face of martyrdom and oppression.
I disagree that advocating violence is the way forward because the argument "they started it" is a terrible defense against being deplorable yourself. I will never support stooping to the level of your enemies citing their baggage. Be above it and find other solutions instead of going straight for violence and oppression.
Democracy itself is the idea that it can house idiotic terrible opinions. The failsafe traditionally is that a healthy populace will stop the crazies from taking power. Too much common sense will protect the infrastructure from radicals from both the left and the right to take power.
With Trump and Brexit that idea is beginning to crumble.

Democracy is not a all-you-can-eat-buffet where we all share ideas about who should be punched and silenced. Today it's neonazis, tomorrow it will be the next in line of deplorables. There is a long list of names of groups and people across the religious and political divide who sees various other groups as enemies of their creed or groups and as sub human or a threat to their beliefs.
It seems easy to see the exercising of other deplorables. There are millions of religious nut cases whose opinions are that they see another group as sub-human. Surely punching and kicking and ostrizing should be engaged on them. If you support stoning women or bombing people in abortion clinics, surely you'd fit in OPs bill of people who we should engage violence on.

I've lived around anarchists and far-left radical and the dogwhistle in this thread rings many memories resurfacing: violence against our political opponents is okay because they are truly awful and a threat to us. Wrapping it into a little punchy punchy here and a little suppression there. It's a terrible precedent to set. I've been to a couple of anti-nazi rallies- one that ended in violence and brick throwing. Let me tell you; this doesn't solve anything. Being right on the issue doesn't leave you open to to be vengeful arbitor of hurting others even if they are deplorable.
What always happens no matter what situation you are talking is that both sides who end up being physical- regardless of who started it, regardless of who has the morale high ground, both will be ostrizied. there are so many disuptes, civil wars and conflicts where this has played itself out. One side is oppression, and the other side goes down to that level.
What I fear is that the more attention the left gives, the more it feeds the trolls, the more it sticks around reading trumps tweets and follows up on what they do, the more they become slaves and sucked into war, division and polarization. banning and ostracizing like was done with Milo, is the PR they want. thats the victim complex they want. It is what is will give them the ammo to run away with new purpose.


I've never seen or heard of a country achieve high levels of equality and fairness for all its people by going into this extreme political war. The only way I've seen it work in other countries is through pacification of it, and through making them give up from underneath. The problem is not that deplorable have a platform where they can speak freely because they have always had that in a free society. The problem is when the propaganda machine- the media is ruining society. Fox News as the leading media source has clearly made a lot of people completely insane. the last decades the chickens are coming home to roast, and now wealthy business men are able to take advantage of the confusion.
Things are bad- But the root cause of the things being bad is not white supremacy. It's not Donald Trump or Gamergate or Milo or what not. These things are symptoms of a sick society that is being brainwashed by a far-right propaganda based media and a political system that is completely beholden conspicuous and dangerous interests who increasingly own the political process. White supremacy has always been there. The US is a racist nation, laid on a burial ground of a slaughtered people whos it still oppresses today. Donald Trump happens because the rest of society has gotten sicker. More miserable people, more fear, more apathy, more anger, less hope. People who join neo nazi groups, who join skinheads, who become football hooligans- these are misguided fools. Similar to those who join other criminal groups and terrible cults. It is extreme to wish violence on these people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom