Students hate toxic masculinity...... But can't define what it is

Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
Masculinity is not a toxin in any form; it is simply something natural that has to be channeled towards constructive rather than destructive purposes. The destructive outcomes of men aren't a part of their masculinity, but are attributable to a failure to integrate one's impulses meaningfully into a good social role--and that failure to retain and strengthen institutions that can mediate and shape men is attributable to the same people who now call masculinity a toxin. It's impossible to take any of these voices seriously or to even argue that they deserve a seat at the table.

20th-21st century feminism, on the other hand, surely classifies as a social toxin or contagion that has damaged quite a few minds and institutions. Or... to be more fair, it's an incoherent movement born of a set of prior ideological toxins (anti-natalism; hyper social-constructionism; various distortions of individualism/consumerism; bits and pieces adopted from Marxism as if they don't conflict with the prior; bad readings of whichever psychoanalytic author was dominant at a given time), none of which it could have created and that it merely grants an immunity from critique by setting them behind an ostensibly noble social cause. It generates faux-academics at every higher ed institution now, so that the rest of us have to politely pretend they're genuine colleagues and real intellectuals when we know fully that they are not.

I think it's pretty easy to pick a side in this nonsense.
Here's your like.
 
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In everyday language, a generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that is applied to a group of people or things. Often, generalizations are not entirely true, because there are usually examples of individuals or situations wherein the generalization does not apply. In this respect, generalizations can be similar to stereotypes in that they are sometimes offensive.
Statements of Generalization
  • All parents try to make life difficult for their children.
  • Every salesman lies to make more money on a sale.
  • Homework is very easy.
  • Homework is very hard.
  • The United States is colder than Europe.
  • Women all want to have large families.
  • Men are all afraid of commitment.
  • The best way to make new friends is to just start talking to people.
  • Nobody really believes that the Earth is flat.
  • Most politicians are greedy and manipulative.
  • No American thinks staying in Iraq is the best solution.
  • Cats are meaner than dogs.
  • Dogs are smarter than cats.
  • Most people find church boring.
  • Everyone likes a little bit of excitement and variety in their life.
  • Only a fool would believe what that commercial says.
  • Learning to drive isn't difficult.
  • College is the only way a person can be properly educated.
  • Everyone who goes to college is an elitist.
  • Rich people are greedy.
  • Poor people are lazy.
  • Men don't enjoy window shopping.
  • Everyone is a cynic these days.
  • No one could complete a marathon without the appropriate training.
  • It's impossible for children to appreciate art.
  • Children should be seen and not heard.
  • If you believe you can do it, you will always succeed.
  • All success is brought about by good luck.
  • Gentlemen with his kind of upbringing are very trustworthy.
  • No one is born evil.
  • Everybody loves a trip to the theme park over the summer.
  • Police officers are corrupt.
  • Police officers are heroes.
  • Girls don't enjoy playing with cars the way boys do.
  • Boys don't enjoy playing with dolls the way girls do.
  • The only way to learn another language is to visit the country where it is spoken.
  • It's never a good idea to drink coffee after noon.
  • To be an author, you need to have a large vocabulary.
  • Only dead fish go with the flow.
  • All criminals have troubled backgrounds.
  • All criminals can be rehabilitated.
  • Nobody truly thinks the world is going to end.
  • Everyone thrives on drama.
  • Photographers can't earn very much money in this economy.
  • A long commute to work makes a person much less productive.
  • Cooking isn't difficult; all you need are the right ingredients.
  • Anyone can learn to cook if they only try.
  • Everyone loves a delivery of flowers and a box of chocolates.
  • All women want men to be romantic.
  • Your family will always be there for you.
  • Friends are people who will never let you down, no matter what.
  • Men all want the same thing - money, power, and fame.
  • Football players are arrogant, cocky people.
  • Nerdy kids are all going to grow up to be rich.
  • Pretty people are always stuck up.
  • Overweight people always overeat.
  • The customer is always right.
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
Hm? In the quote he says "a lot of racists seem to wear MAGA hats ", which is the other way around and not saying most? Saying "a lot of X are Y" is not a generalisation. And "a lot of X are Y" is completely different from "most of Y are X".
"I didn't say all MAGA hat wearers are racists, I didn't even say a majority, I said a lot" - That reads as "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists". Further, that he has made so many pronouncements on a similar theme suggests that he does in fact have the view that MAGA hat wearers are racist. I'm disappointed that you're letting ideological dogma and defending your own side interfere with your understanding of truth. I honestly thought (hoped) you were better than that.
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
"I didn't say all MAGA hat wearers are racists, I didn't even say a majority, I said a lot" - That reads as "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists". Further, that he has made so many pronouncements on a similar theme suggests that he does in fact have the view that MAGA hat wearers are racist. I'm disappointed that you're letting ideological dogma and defending your own side interfere with your understanding of truth. I honestly thought (hoped) you were better than that.
Yes, you combine those to "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists", but even "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists" + "a lot of racists are MAGA hat wearers" is less then the absolute minimum of a generalisation "most X are Y". A lot is a very fuzzy quantification that is highly individual in its interpretation and lacks any sort of formality that would be necessary for a generalisation.

Making this about ideology again, is in fact more indicative of how you view the world than how I do. The quotes do not fit the criteria to be generalsations. Being a generalisation does not even necessarily mean something is wrong. It is not ideological that I say that the quoted posts are not generalisations. If someone was saying "a lot of criminals in the US are black" I would not accept that being called a generalisation either. It could be used in a racist context, but it is not a generalisation, plain and simple. I am not appreciative of mischaracterisations no matter whether they come from my political side or another.

EDIT: I also did not say that he does not think the majority of MAGA hat wearers are racists. Maybe he does. But he has not stated it in the quotes, so he was not generalising in the quotes, independent of whether it might be his opinion or not. And also independent of whether it is true or not by the way.
 
Last edited:
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
I see you wriggling. I find it interesting that you shift and wriggle for people who are on your side. It's clear that, as with NI and solitaire, productive discussion is not possible. It's a shame. Dealing with you guys is just tiring, as you spit out the same hypocritical garbage, defending those who match your ideology no matter their behaviour, partisan to the last, dying on that hill to defend a cause that cares nothing for you. I wouldn't wear a Trump hat because I'm not a Trump supporter, but I recognise many reasons that people voted Trump. The only way the left can regain its political and moral authority is to understand what happened, but posts from you guys tell me that we're a long way away from that - it's thanks to you guys that we'll be stuck with Trump (and the Tories in the UK.. fucking hell..) for a lot longer yet.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I see you wriggling. I find it interesting that you shift and wriggle for people who are on your side. It's clear that, as with NI and solitaire, productive discussion is not possible. It's a shame.
Then get your eyes checked. How is "a lot of X are Y" a generalisation? How do you define a generalisation? What kind of productivity do you expect out of it? There is no wriggling or shifting. My position is unchanged, except for the point that I missed that @KarneeKarnay made both statements "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists" and "a lot of racists are MAGA hat wearers". Still, neither is a generalisation.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,972
2,893
530
Then get your eyes checked. How is "a lot of X are Y" a generalisation? How do you define a generalisation?
From a little further up the same page:
In everyday language, a generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that is applied to a group of people or things.
:unsure:


..that @KarneeKarnay made both statements "a lot of MAGA hat wearers are racists" and "a lot of racists are MAGA hat wearers". Still, neither is a generalisation.
:unsure:



Then get your eyes checked.
:unsure:
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
It's a shame. Dealing with you guys is just tiring, as you spit out the same hypocritical garbage, defending those who match your ideology no matter their behaviour, partisan to the last, dying on that hill to defend a cause that cares nothing for you. I wouldn't wear a Trump hat because I'm not a Trump supporter, but I recognise many reasons that people voted Trump. The only way the left can regain its political and moral authority is to understand what happened, but posts from you guys tell me that we're a long way away from that - it's thanks to you guys that we'll be stuck with Trump (and the Tories in the UK.. fucking hell..) for a lot longer yet.
Since you added 2/3s of that post at a later point, I will answer to that:

If you go back and read my postings, you will see that I merely pointed out that the quoted text does not make for a generalisation. What is hypocritical about this? I am not even defending a cause here, other than to not abuse terms whose precise meaning is important, such as generalisation, which is a very important concept.

Now, if you want to discuss the matter of MAGA hats, independent of the matter of whether this was a generalisation, I have no issues with doing that as well, but I haven't up until this point. But here is my take on that: MAGA hats indicate a strong adherence to Trump's ideology and strong support of him as a president. In general. Almost all people who wear MAGA hats, will have strong ideological matching to the major talking points of Trump (again, a generalisation). I do not think that racism is really at the core of Trump's ideology, however, nationalism and xenophobia are. I would thus state that I deem it likely that the majority of people who wear MAGA hats will be nationalists (a generalisation). Nationalism and xenophobia often coincide with racism, because the group-based valuation of humans based on ancestry is at the core of all three principles, so they are actually conceptually closely linked. It is therefore likely that a significant portion of MAGA hat wearers hold racist views.

"What happened" with Trump is a very broad field and it is not really answered properly by the discussion of MAGA hats, because we would have to tackle a multitude of issues, such as
- reductive social media communication
- unfair preferential treatment of Clinton
- negative consequences of globalisation for lower-middle class...
- ... coupled with the easily instrumentalised, yet wrong idea that austerity can solve these issues for first world countries
- behaving arrogantly and insulting the intelligence of Trump and his voters
- being overly certain of victory
- failure to develop a convincing programme and thus running merely on the premise of not being Trump (and identity-based alignments)

This is a completely different topic though and one that would ask for more thorough discussion of these issues.

And just as an aside: Your continued dismissal of postings of left-leaning posters for the mere fact that you suspect partisan behaviour is indicative of one of the above issues. Since I think you are resourceful, I think you will be able to identify it.
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
Dismissal of left-leaning posters.. I fucking AM a left-leaning poster. I voted fucking Labour. I would vote for Bernie if I was American. I honestly give up.
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Dismissal of left-leaning posters.. I fucking AM a left-leaning poster. I voted fucking Labour. I would vote for Bernie if I was American. I honestly give up.
Then let me be more precise, of left-leaning posters other than you. Merely agreeing with the point that something does not match the definition of generalisation suffices for you to treat the posting as a partisan issue and deduce from that that it is adequate to disregard everything I post in general. I get that you are fed up with certain tendencies you observe in many left-leaning persons, but I also feel that you are grouping way too much and are stereotyping non-nationalist left-leaning persons in harmful ways. For me, specifically, I am pretty certain that your views of my political alignments are pretty skewed and considering you specifically misattributed me as an interesectionalist already, I maintain the strong feeling that you fail to individually assess posters.
 
Then let me be more precise, of left-leaning posters other than you. Merely agreeing with the point that something does not match the definition of generalisation suffices for you to treat the posting as a partisan issue and deduce from that that it is adequate to disregard everything I post in general. I get that you are fed up with certain tendencies you observe in many left-leaning persons, but I also feel that you are grouping way too much and are stereotyping non-nationalist left-leaning persons in harmful ways. For me, specifically, I am pretty certain that your views of my political alignments are pretty skewed and considering you specifically misattributed me as an interesectionalist already, I maintain the strong feeling that you fail to individually assess posters.
Put it better than I could. @Schrödinger's cat you could learn a lot from this guy.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,972
2,893
530
Put it better than I could. @Schrödinger's cat you could learn a lot from this guy.
I'm unclear how the exchange between two people becomes a sincere yardstick by which to measure a third person by.
But then, I'm very clear how deflection and distraction are frequently employed when someone doesn't have a proper argument to make.

Once again, @Yoshi is going full-on semantics and obfuscation - hoping to redefine terms and to move goalposts to retcon skewed logic to support the desired and predetermined conclusion.
There have been a good number of exchanges where reliance on this has been used. With contradictions, double-standards and, shock-horror, generalisations wheeled out in the face of logic, specifics and reason.
It is no small degree of irony that @Yoshi is objecting to misattribution. A tactic he is grossly guilty of himself and one that you, with your disingenuous inferences of -isms labels to those that call you out, are also fond
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I'm unclear how the exchange between two people becomes a sincere yardstick by which to measure a third person by.
But then, I'm very clear how deflection and distraction are frequently employed when someone doesn't have a proper argument to make.
I am not entirely sure, but I suspect that @KarneeKarnay just quoted the wrong posting and meant this:
Now, if you want to discuss the matter of MAGA hats, independent of the matter of whether this was a generalisation, I have no issues with doing that as well, but I haven't up until this point. But here is my take on that: MAGA hats indicate a strong adherence to Trump's ideology and strong support of him as a president. In general. Almost all people who wear MAGA hats, will have strong ideological matching to the major talking points of Trump (again, a generalisation). I do not think that racism is really at the core of Trump's ideology, however, nationalism and xenophobia are. I would thus state that I deem it likely that the majority of people who wear MAGA hats will be nationalists (a generalisation). Nationalism and xenophobia often coincide with racism, because the group-based valuation of humans based on ancestry is at the core of all three principles, so they are actually conceptually closely linked. It is therefore likely that a significant portion of MAGA hat wearers hold racist views.
(either way I appreciate the kind words)
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
@KarneeKarnay I'm curious, what's your end-game here? You seem not to be able to debate people, just jumping in with hot takes making points that have already been debunked, insulting people, I'm just curious what you hope to achieve. You seem to have not posted from July 2018 to a couple of days ago and now you're all over the kind of threads NI, yoshi and solitaire love to shit-stir in, and really not bringing any quality of debate to the party. I'm wondering, did the bat-signal go up over at Ree?
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
@KarneeKarnay I'm curious, what's your end-game here? You seem not to be able to debate people, just jumping in with hot takes making points that have already been debunked, insulting people, I'm just curious what you hope to achieve. You seem to have not posted from July 2018 to a couple of days ago and now you're all over the kind of threads NI, yoshi and solitaire love to shit-stir in, and really not bringing any quality of debate to the party. I'm wondering, did the bat-signal go up over at Ree?
You're one to talk about productive posting behaviour....
 
@KarneeKarnay I'm curious, what's your end-game here? You seem not to be able to debate people, just jumping in with hot takes making points that have already been debunked, insulting people, I'm just curious what you hope to achieve. You seem to have not posted from July 2018 to a couple of days ago and now you're all over the kind of threads NI, yoshi and solitaire love to shit-stir in, and really not bringing any quality of debate to the party. I'm wondering, did the bat-signal go up over at Ree?
I've been honest with my intentions since the get go. I don't want to end up in an echo chamber. I'm looking for opposing opinions and discussion. To my knowledge none of the points I've made have been debunked. Hell my involvement in a thread about an opinion on a hat, has been me trying to get people to understand what a generalisation is.

I'm more than happy to talk to people who can grasp the difference between a generalisation and what I wrote. If you want we can start anew now.

Not all people who wear MAGA hats are racist, but a lot of racists seem to wear MAGA hats..
How do we debate this?

I am not entirely sure, but I suspect that @KarneeKarnay just quoted the wrong posting and meant this:
I was only referring to the two sentence of the quote. It was on my mind that @Schrödinger's cat seems to purity test people.

But then, I'm very clear how deflection and distraction are frequently employed when someone doesn't have a proper argument to make.
An argument is usually put forward to prove something. When I say...

Not all people who wear MAGA hats are racist, but a lot of racists seem to wear MAGA hats..
What am I proving and to who?
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
@KarneeKarnay - If that is the case, you'll need to up your game a bit. Blundering into threads making points that have already been debunked and refusing to do the background reading isn't great - thing is that there are some seriously sharp debaters here and the expectation is that you'll put as much effort in as they do. If you don't, you'll not get the most out of your time here. It's your call dude but ultimately you get what you give.

 
@KarneeKarnay - If that is the case, you'll need to up your game a bit. Blundering into threads making points that have already been debunked and refusing to do the background reading isn't great - thing is that there are some seriously sharp debaters here and the expectation is that you'll put as much effort in as they do. If you don't, you'll not get the most out of your time here. It's your call dude but ultimately you get what you give.

In the words of @Schrödinger's cat . Why are you deflecting? If you can't debate my original statement then admit it. Seriously I would have more respect for you if you admitted that my original quote wasn't an argument, therefor can not be expected to require empirical data to prove and also not a generalisation.
 
Aug 22, 2018
1,900
2,466
265
Nah you're not worth the effort. You have made it clear you're not here to engage, to get out of your bubble, you want to bring your bubble here. It's a shame. The best thing about this place is how you get your views challenged, I know I had mine challenged (hi I'm a lefty Labour voter). Getting into debate, reading everone's views, having to actually DEFEND my views, sharpened my thinking and my debating. I hope you come round and get the same benefit, but that's up to you.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,972
2,893
530
It was on my mind that @Schrödinger's cat seems to purity test people.
If you enter a discussion, I expect you to understand what is being discussed.
If you make a claim and are challenged, I expect you to substantiate your claim.
This is not purity. This a very basic standard that most manage to meet.
Passing off such low standards as 'purity' is a fine demonstration of your attitude towards sincere discussion.
What am I proving and to who?
You are proving your fondness for inferring racism on the people that challenge your disingenuous rhetoric and for repeating generlisations that you later refute you used.
In the words of @Schrödinger's cat . Why are you deflecting?
Amazing. Don't address your own deflection when its brought up, but do reference it was brought up - only to redirect it at someone who challenges you.
The slithering away from any accountability, whilst at the same time projecting accountability onto anyone who doesn't see things your way - exceptional gymnastics at play.

Toxic.
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2005
1,234
282
1,155
germany
God, I wish I would save every interesting article I read... I remember an article about showing high school kids and college kids 80s and 90s movies and then asking them if they were offended by them, and the result was, most of them weren’t personally offended, but most of them said, if those were screened today, TWITTER would hate them.

The conclusion was, individually Kids are alright, but they see social media, especially Twitter as a moral instance that is feared.

Fucks sake, I wish I had that link. Dear right wing people, I‘m sure you dudes have this one archived somewhere, I would actually send original Bavarian beer to your location if you could provide me a link to this study!
 
Jun 13, 2018
484
526
220
Brazil
Toxic Masculinity is just a stupid term that is used like a brand by stupid millennials so they can feel more intellectual and special. It's a catchphrase. Nothing more than that.

It's like:

- woke
- bae
- part of the problem
- we need to talk about (insert stupid and irrelevant subject)
- female empowerment
- cis
- heteronormative

They are all stupid buzzwords.
 
Last edited:

BesuBaru

Neo Member
Aug 25, 2018
41
32
100
I'll never understand why gender studies is a thing and the type of people who would waste money on that shit.
Gender Studies is a sociology class, but instead of possibly getting a career from being a sociologist, you are just setting yourself up to become another gender studies professor.

No wonder why they complain about the wagegap. It pays for shit.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
Most people can't define the things they hate. The fear of the unknown/icky is a significant driving factor in their hate.

I mean, don't you hate the things that make you go yikes?
I hate things that go "yikes" that aren't Scooby Doo.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
I’m a bit late to this party but if you don’t see the hypocrisy in being offended by one of the following statements and not the other, maybe you’re the problem:

“Not all people who wear MAGA hats are racist, but a lot of racists seem to wear MAGA hats..”

“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of terrorists are Muslim..”